The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on December 14, 2024, 10:10:37 AM
-
I'd love to hear your takes on which five of the current pricing games you dislike most and the reason or reasons why.
While not technically an active pricing game, Pay The Rent is on hiatus due to the move from CBS Television City to the new studio. As the new studio is smaller, they're needing to resize the large Pay The Rent set. That being said, I'm not a big fan of this game at all. The $1,000 and $5,000 levels are extremely easy to win and reaching $10,000 tends to not be that much more difficult. Getting all the items in just the right order though is a tough challenge and while that is commensurate to a $100,000 total prize, I simply do not miss seeing this game very much. If they changed the game to where you needed to select 2 of the 6 items to exceed a certain total for $5,000, then 2 more of the items to exceed another total for $10,000 and then the last 2 remaining products not previously selected having to exceed another given total to win the $100,000 might prove more challenging.
One Wrong Price - This game bores me to tears. The show has a few three prize games that are quick games already with Most Expensive, Easy as 1 2 3 and Make Your Move. For a show called Price is RIGHT, having a game with the exact opposite title seems like a bad idea to me. The set is unique and I do love that it, along with Five Price Tags, are the only two pricing games whose names are not listed anywhere. That said, it's a very "meh" game to me at best.
That's Too Much! - Price is Right's main premise is to bid as close as you can without going over, yet this game wants players TO go over, but just by a little bit. The correct answer could be anywhere from the 2nd through the 9th possible price shown. I consider it highly unlikely that the show ever has or ever will use the first or tenth prices as the one that's "too much". It also has a very low win percentage and is a rather boring game to me. Much as I'm not a fan of non-car games being played FOR cars, I'd much prefer to see Range Game played for an automobile than this horrid game.
Coming Or Going - The set is very dull and so simple. If the prize is a trip, the answer seems to always be "going", and if it's not a trip, the answer seems to always be "coming". Double Prices and Side By Side are enough one prize games involving a 50/50 chance to win.
Time Is Money - Of all the current pricing games, this is the one I detest most of all. There is virtually ZERO play along factor with this game. Furthermore, while it is rare for anyone to win the $20,000 top prize, it is far too common that players end up winning ZERO dollars in this game. As a TV viewer I get absolutely ZERO enjoyment or pleasure watching this pricing game and usually if I have it recorded, I just fast forward through it since almost nobody ever wins a darn thing in this miserable game.
I'd love to hear your lists. I'm sure a great many are not fans of Stack The Deck, but at least that game involves two levels of pricing, one with grocery items and another for the car itself. I don't mind that aspect of it, just how incredibly difficult it seems to be to win. I wish they could amend the game where if a player gets all three grocery items priced right that they earn one extra card for the game.
-
I enjoy Stack the Deck (mind your initials!) and wish it was played for the luxury cars like Three Strikes. Get those grocery choices right, pick the proper spaces and it becomes "how many thousands of dollars is this car?"
I tend to blip through most of the quick-choice games unless they have a bit of movement to them, but given a silver bullet I would eliminate Freeze Frame. It's a clever-ish use of shuffling through digits but the shutter noise ruins it for me. Pay the Rent is at least an interesting puzzle with entirely too large stakes and a stupid name.
Half-Off is fine enough but the new obsession with blue as the dominant color makes it awful to look at. Bonus Game is totally irrelevant, doesn't have the cash bonus opportunity and provides no player agency other than "be right."
-
I'd have to take more than a few moments to whittle my 5 least favorite games. But I would likely choose 5 pricing games that are practically identical with another pricing game. For example:
Double Prices = One Right Price, the only difference is winning one or two prizes if correct.
Shell Game = Bonus Game, the only differences in Shell Game are, 1) the contestant can choose which shell may be the winning shell -- in any order they wish. And 2) they have a chance to make a bonus "side bet" if they are guaranteed the win.
Usually it's the quickie games that are very similar in scope. But if they ever retired Bonus Game instead of alternating it with Shell Game, I probably wouldn't miss it. Plus it's one less prop set they have to keep in storage.
-
Very clever about the "Stack the Deck" initials! Good thing we're not talking about "Bumper Stumpers".
The only reason I'd not want to see Bonus Game retired, for one, it was played on the very first show, along with Any Number and Double Prices, so it's rather nice that it's still in the rotation to this day...
I would be hard pressed in thinking the show would retire Bonus Game A. because in recent years they updated the graphics with the electronic windows, also perfect playing only wins the bonus prize whereas Shell Game could really be a budget buster with all 4 chips being won since the cash award for a perfect playing of Shell Game and then identifying where the ball is is equal now to the prize package being played for, as opposed to the base $500 which was the norm for a very long time with Shelly.
-
Watching the Barker Era channel, my first thought is "Holy cow, did Danger Price get overplayed or what?"
Of the long-running pricing games, I think I'd pick "Ten Chances" as my least favorite. Even all these years later, you get people who don't understand how to play it. And I don't even mean the zero rule. I mean people trying to reuse numbers and such. And when you get one of those players, ten chances starts to feel like twenty.
-
Watching the Barker Era channel, my first thought is "Holy cow, did Danger Price get overplayed or what?"
It would have been ten years old in the mid-1980s, and that, Poker Game, Take Two and Race Game all had the same rubric of four one-biddish prizes, so I wonder if they had a backlog of those.
-
Hard to fathom that Danger Price ranks 25th as far as oldest pricing games on the show, considering as of this posting the show has featured some 112 different pricing games (not counting any LMAD games played on Price during Mash-up weeks).
During the mid 1980s there were far fewer games in the rotation too which might explain why Danger Price appears to show up so often. It's still a solid game and I don't mind seeing it.
According to http://tpirstats.com/Other/AllSeasons.html, Danger Price was played 35 times during season 13, the 1984 - 85 season which would be the last full season with Johnny Olson as announcer. Not sure how many episodes there were back in season 13 but even if you figure 220 episodes, 35 is a pretty large number of times for Danger Price to appear. Again the pricing game rotation was far smaller even back then than it is in 2024 with over six dozen pricing games in the rotation.
-
Hard to fathom that Danger Price ranks 25th as far as oldest pricing games on the show, considering as of this posting the show has featured some 112 different pricing games (not counting any LMAD games played on Price during Mash-up weeks).
It makes sense. Danger Price was the first game to debut after the show permanently switched to an hour and once that happened, there was a steady stream of games introduced each season to beef up the rotation.
Time Is Money - Of all the current pricing games, this is the one I detest most of all. There is virtually ZERO play along factor with this game. Furthermore, while it is rare for anyone to win the $20,000 top prize, it is far too common that players end up winning ZERO dollars in this game. As a TV viewer I get absolutely ZERO enjoyment or pleasure watching this pricing game and usually if I have it recorded, I just fast forward through it since almost nobody ever wins a darn thing in this miserable game.
I find the first part of this critique interesting because I thought there was play along factor in guessing which products belong in which ranges. I assign each range a number (1 for the low ranger, 2 for the middle, 3 for the high-end) and then guess where I think which one goes. And during the countdown gameplay, I then think to myself, "maybe that product could go there" or when watching the contestant "you fool, cashews are like $9, keep it high!" I won't say that it's enjoyable for everyone, especially when a contestant is completely clueless and it becomes "Waiting 30 Seconds for the Money to Hit Zero," but hey, I like yelling at my TV.
I don't have very many least favorites that aren't just overplayed one or two prize games (which is understandable) or games that suffer from poor setups despite the actual game not being bad (Switcheroo or Pathfinder), but I will put down one game that is absolutely on any list of my least favorites...
Hot Seat: This is a Let's Make A Deal game, but because there's no pricing games allowed on Brady LMAD because it's become Price's sister show, it's got ported over to Price. It has the gloss and sheen of Let's Make a Deal and uses SFX that sound like they were crafted by Cat Gray. It's very boring to me. Congrats, you're playing Higher/Lower in chair. Glad you're comfy. I appreciate the suspense of going for it, but it's not enough for me to justify its gigantic Shower Game-rivaling set and time to play. I also hate that it has no introduction anymore. Prior to the pandemic, they used a graphic on the backwall to introduce the game, but they dropped it because there was no audience during the first pandemic season and they didn't want to use a shot of the backwall. Instead of using another piece of the set such as George's podium (which they've done in the past), they decided to just walk up to the game, zoom out from the game's sign and have Drew just go into explaining the game. Even following the return of the audience, they have decided not to bring back that intro and currently, Hot Seat stands as the only cash game in the show's rotation that doesn't have its top prize introduced or announced by George. It's just...there and it's a nitpick of mine that makes me sad the director doesn't seem to mind for someone who's as details oriented as Adam Sandler.
-
My least fave:
What may be the most unpopular opinion in the room - Plinko. I've just never liked it.
My other least favorites:
One Right Price
One Wrong Price
Double Prices
Side by Side
There's an obvious pattern there....I'm not a fan of the "quickie" games, but I know that they need to be in the rotation.
-
My least fave:
What may be the most unpopular opinion in the room - Plinko. I've just never liked it.
It's unfair to the contestant who just wants to be on TV and win some cash but I've started to hate-watch in a fashion, laughing when someone wins just two extra chips and they total up $600. Same as Time is Money when the contestant spends 17 seconds looking into the crowd and furtively moves stuff back and forth.
-
1. You can't
2. rank pricing games
3. in this manner, every
4. game is someone's favourite
5. Stack the Deck
-
1. You can't
2. rank pricing games
3. in this manner, every
4. game is someone's favourite
5. Stack the Deck
I remember having this exact conversation with Steve G. and wondering for whom that answer is "Double Prices," and then finding out that STYDFan/CarShark did in fact proclaim that it was his favorite game because it generated wins.
-
I remember having this exact conversation with Steve G. and wondering for whom that answer is "Double Prices," and then finding out that STYDFan/CarShark did in fact proclaim that it was his favorite game because it generated wins.
I'll just leave this here without comment.
(https://i.ibb.co/3FYv8Cb/Messenger-creation-bd748e19-a57f-4a3c-bdbb-41d32e68ce9c.jpg)
-
It has taken me a few days to mull over this, but I tried to come up with ones that really aren't just "quick plays" since those are there purposefully:
(In no particular order)
1. Pay the Rent (clearly designed to not be won often, but most contestants will stop at $10,000 anyway, so it feels like a letdown almost every time)
2. Gas Money (way too high of a cash consolation prize, and the mechanic of "avoid the right price" seems counterintuitive to The Price is Right)
3. Bonus Game (not a bad game per se, but Shell Game does the same mechanics so much better it's a wonder this game hasn't been retired)
4. Double Cross (so much chrome/explanation for a game that's really a 1/3 guess...you know they will never put the correct answer as the default setting!)
5. Pass the Buck (get a 1/6 chance of winning the car without needing to know anything about prices...at least Let 'em Roll makes it a 1/32 chance if you don't know anything about prices)
I absolutely agree Plinko is way overplayed, but I don't hate the game. Likewise, I don't hate the idea of Stack the Deck or Time is Money; it's just painful to see so many contestants play it suboptimally.
Honorable mentions: That's Too Much (way too challenging to win, and again, seems counterintuitive to the show's title, but at least it plays quickly) and Gridlock (pretty much a quick-play version of Money Game; chrome is nice, though)
Anthony
-
5. Pass the Buck (get a 1/6 chance of winning the car without needing to know anything about prices...at least Let 'em Roll makes it a 1/32 chance if you don't know anything about prices)
One way that I would improve PTB at least in my mind is that if the contestant doesn't win either extra number choice that Drew reveals the location of the car and then the contestant chooses from what is left.
-
4. Double Cross (so much chrome/explanation for a game that's really a 1/3 guess...you know they will never put the correct answer as the default setting!)
I (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,35253.0.html) wouldn't (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,33992.0.html) be (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32834.0.html) so (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32011.0.html) sure (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,31202.0.html) about (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,30041.0.html) that (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,27790.0.html)...
-
I've never cared for Golden Road or Pick a Number - and am lumping them together. Functionally they're the same game, the former just with better chrome and for increasingly expensive prizes. For the four and five digit prizes, the games are essentially a lottery; no one credibly knows whether that Corvette is $72,178 or $72,378. I dislike Pick a Number more since it's the same game just stripping out the parts that do make GR interesting (ludicrously expensive prizes, chrome) but I'm never even remotely excited to see Golden Road.
I really dislike Hot Seat. While the two core mechanics of the game (High/low on a timer, the bailout sequence) are fine or even good, the core gimmick of the game is a hot mess. The chair's a potential point for mechanical failure (I'd be shocked if it hasn't failed at least once, and the show just edited with the contestant playing a different game, and the moving up and down the row on the chair overcomplicates the game's better bit (high/low on the clock). It's mechanical complexity also limits where it can appear in a show, a facet I've never cared for.
I think Take Two is the worst in the genre of "Here's four mid prizes that are almost never anything fun". It lacks Race Game's fun chaotic sprint, it's harder to reason your way out of (Shopping Spree), it doesn't have the same fun visual identity of a Danger Price, etc. The ONLY time they ever hit on something worthwhile with this game was with the 4-sport season ticket packages, and trying to work out which combo of sports tickets generates that price. Once that stopped, it was just "Oh hey, uh, dinette set and patio furniture I guess? I'm declining those tax burdens anyway, shame I didn't even get to run around like a goof."
I think it says something that they tried mightily hard to kill Bonus Game as early as 1974. The design of the game's ugly, the game hasn't given away anything anything interesting in the prize guessing section since 1974, unless the game's for a car or rarely cash it's not played for a bonus prize that's worthwhile, and to win the likely pointless prize you're basically just hoping against hope you got the one arbitrary small prize right. (Plus Shell Game adding in the extra "guess where the win is for a bonus" for getting all 4 right was genius and Bonus Game should have imported it). At this point I don't think the show would kill off any of the surviving four Day One games unless something catastrophic happened, but have never cared for Bonus Game in particular.
-
1. More or Less--This is simply a chromed up version of a pricing variant seen in many other pricing games.
2. Pathfinder--Long winded game to win a car with low odds.
3. ½ Off--This used to be my least favorite. Adding in the $1,000 bonus knocks it down the list; still, terrible odds to win the top prize. In comparison to another pricing game where a contestant can do everything wrong and still luck in to $10k. Which brings me to...
4. Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood. This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful. The set is about as ugly as the "Hollywood mural" set, which doesn't help its case, at least in my book.
5. Lucky Seven--I remember reading about a series of playings where 9 was a frequent choice. This helped sour me on what was already a difficult pricing game. If you don't want to give away a car, don't build up the excitement by driving the car out on stage. Especially when Lucky Seven was always first; starting the day out on a downer isn't great, in my opinion.
-
5. Lucky Seven--I remember reading about a series of playings where 9 was a frequent choice. This helped sour me on what was already a difficult pricing game. If you don't want to give away a car, don't build up the excitement by driving the car out on stage. Especially when Lucky Seven was always first; starting the day out on a downer isn't great, in my opinion.
My least favorite. I don’t like the purple wall and Times Roman numbers, and winning depends totally on how the show’s budget is doing.
2. Bonus Game, especially since the video monitor gives the impression they could cheat.
3. Side-by-Side. Ugly props.
4. Shopping Spree. Credit Card was essentially the same thing but with way better presentation and it broke the five-prize barrier.
5. Take Two.
I love Stack the Deck although they should remove one of the car digits, and I may be the only one, but I like Hot Seat, both the how the game plays and the electric chair.
-
4. Double Cross (so much chrome/explanation for a game that's really a 1/3 guess...you know they will never put the correct answer as the default setting!)
I (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,35253.0.html) wouldn't (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,33992.0.html) be (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32834.0.html) so (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32011.0.html) sure (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,31202.0.html) about (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,30041.0.html) that (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,27790.0.html)...
Dang...shows how observant I am! I stand corrected, and amend my probability to 1/4, then. :)
Anthony
-
4. Double Cross (so much chrome/explanation for a game that's really a 1/3 guess...you know they will never put the correct answer as the default setting!)
I (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,35253.0.html) wouldn't (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,33992.0.html) be (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32834.0.html) so (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,32011.0.html) sure (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,31202.0.html) about (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,30041.0.html) that (https://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,27790.0.html)...
Pathetic. This defeats the entire premise of contestant interaction with a pricing game - and is incredibly "mean spirited" in terms of a forced loss. This would be as bad as the correct sequence in Pushover not requiring a single block to be pushed off the ledge.
I think it says something that they tried mightily hard to kill Bonus Game as early as 1974. The design of the game's ugly, the game hasn't given away anything anything interesting in the prize guessing section since 1974, unless the game's for a car or rarely cash it's not played for a bonus prize that's worthwhile, and to win the likely pointless prize you're basically just hoping against hope you got the one arbitrary small prize right.
While Bonus Game has certainly lost its luster over years of inflation, the one factor that I'm not sure everyone considers when it comes to the "bore" of Bonus Game is that when it was conceived, the "bonus" prize was truly that -- a bonus. In the early years, the game often offered Small Prizes which were greater than $200; with the combined totals of all four usually adding up to over $500. This was equivalent to nearly 20% of the value of Showcases (and considered very decent prizes). Today, these small prizes wouldn't amount to 0.001% of a Showcase. I suspect that when the original brain-trust were conceiving these games, the idea was that giving away a $250 food processor was considered a "nice prize" (as the game bible often described them).
I think as the years went on, the Small Prizes were considered to be "components" of programming a pricing game (i.e. "win another chance with this stapler"), rather than the actual of focus of them.
-
In no particular order:
1. Microwave The Cat
2. Throw a Football, Win a Car
3. Price Charming
4. Suds & Prices (Unless paid for a car)
5. Stack the Deck
-
[quote author=MSTieScott link=topic=36140.msg
While Bonus Game has certainly lost its luster over years of inflation, the one factor that I'm not sure everyone considers when it comes to the "bore" of Bonus Game is that when it was conceived, the "bonus" prize was truly that -- a bonus. In the early years, the game often offered Small Prizes which were greater than $200; with the combined totals of all four usually adding up to over $500. This was equivalent to nearly 20% of the value of Showcases (and considered very decent prizes). Today, these small prizes wouldn't amount to 0.001% of a Showcase. I suspect that when the original brain-trust were conceiving these games, the idea was that giving away a $250 food processor was considered a "nice prize" (as the game bible often described them).
I think as the years went on, the Small Prizes were considered to be "components" of programming a pricing game (i.e. "win another chance with this stapler"), rather than the actual of focus of them.
I remember happening upon an early 80s show where Punch a Bunch was played and a wet-dry vacuum worth in excess of $200 was one of the items and I marveled that even if you flame out at the money board at least you were taking home some decent loot. Was there a reason that the show drifted away to using smaller items instead of nice-prices for those either/or, higher/lower, true/false games other than variety in terms of what was shown?
-
Now that Range Game is routinely played for prizes in excess of $5000, there's no greater likelihood of being able to price the item accurately; it's just a game of "can you wait until the middle?"--and even then there's no reason producers couldn't decide to put price at the top or bottom of the range. Why not play it somewhat more like Safecrackers--if you can accurately price this sub-1K item, then you win this larger one.
On the other hand, how about Cliffhangers? Price the items at $25-35-45 and you'll win nearly every time. Unless, of course, producers are feeling snarky.
But you gotta keep Bonus Game, just like you gotta keep Any Number and Double Prices. It's history.
-
4. Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood. This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful. The set is about as ugly as the "Hollywood mural" set, which doesn't help its case, at least in my book.
Didn't Plinko offer (but never award) the biggest prize to date when it premiered? Golden Road may have eclipsed the $25,000 level by that time, but Plinko was the biggest all-cash prize offered at that time, which may explain the over zealous excitement for the game originally.
But I agree, that for people to go batsh*it over a game that is lucky to see 20% of the possible maximum amount won on average by a contestant at any given time is a bit much.
At least with Pay The Rent, winning the top prize is not 100% luck-based.
-
Early in Drew's run, the notion was thrown out that more games be played for money. I like the idea of a Bonus Game bonus of, say, $5000 cash and playing with Race Game or Contestants' Row level prizes. The bonus reveal could be a starburst popping up from behind the board.
I agree on Range Game. Make the increments 1000 and the rangefinder $1500. Easy peasy. I'd bump Card Game from 10 to 100 times the card value, too. TPIR is often about luck with the illusion of skill, but with these two, the illusion is threadbare.
-
Didn't Plinko offer (but never award) the biggest prize to date when it premiered? Golden Road may have eclipsed the $25,000 level by that time, but Plinko was the biggest all-cash prize offered at that time, which may explain the over zealous excitement for the game originally.
Looks like it. I just looked up a few playings on the (unofficial) TPiR Wiki and it looks like the vehicles offered in late-82/early-83 were in the 14-18K range.
Considering a lotta Showcases were still four-figures and given that 25K was a year’s salary back then I could see the fuss with all the chrome. Never really thought about it, but the others make a good point that the only real excitement is the top prize potential. It’s other cash games that offer a nice payday and actually require you to know prices.
And to answer the question I don’t think I have a least favorite current game. Joker used to bore me to tears though. :P
-
5. Pass the Buck (get a 1/6 chance of winning the car without needing to know anything about prices...at least Let 'em Roll makes it a 1/32 chance if you don't know anything about prices)
One way that I would improve PTB at least in my mind is that if the contestant doesn't win either extra number choice that Drew reveals the location of the car and then the contestant chooses from what is left.
I like that idea personally but I don't see it flying because of how let down the player would be as well as the audience there and at home.
Of course they could start out by saying "While you will get one pick for free from our board, you must win at least one more choice to qualify for the automobile." Would be akin I suppose to Ten Chances where the 10th chance is still being played for the 3 digit prize, you know the car won't be getting played for...
And when the show is in their ever-famous "budget mode", those grocery items could be an "evil" set up.
-
The few times I've seen "To the Penny", it seems awfully awkward and doesn't work visually.
-
To the one who talked about Double Cross being a possible evil set up with the default setting being right, I am okay with it since the name of the game is "double cross" after all!
That said, that pricing game bores me big time. Do The Math is a far superior game.
As far as Push Over being correct with the first sequence of blocks, the player still has to push the blocks over into the blue window, so I'm okay with that too actually. That said, Push Over is way overplayed in my humble opinion.
-
Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood. This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful.
What’s bothered me about Plinko more is that they keep adding chrome to their already-chromiest game. Some time post-COVID they started playing a Dig We Must cut for every $10k win, which sounds so out of place. Also, it’s still the one game without a max winner. My idea of “small prizes increase a multiplier for one single chip drop” got lost in the mail somewhere.
The few times I've seen "To the Penny", it seems awfully awkward and doesn't work visually.
It has a rule set more in line with a money tier game show than Price’s simplicity. Remove the “spend a penny to remove wrong answers” option and just charge one penny for every wrong guess.
-
As much as I love Jeremy's Plinko idea you still have the chance of multiplying by a low amount, but those are the breaks. For a long time you had an 80% chance to punch a sub-$1,000 card and so be it.
I've come around after its first playing--I think To the Penny is a worthy successor to Penny Ante and a player can use strategy to move through the rounds. My only hangup is the name--of course it's to the penny, every grocery item is.
The great thing about TPIR is that with so many games you're bound to like at least something they do every day if you don't love all of it. And if you don't find at least something to like, I question why it would be tuned in.
-
Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood. This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful.
What’s bothered me about Plinko more is that they keep adding chrome to their already-chromiest game. Some time post-COVID they started playing a Dig We Must cut for every $10k win, which sounds so out of place. Also, it’s still the one game without a max winner. My idea of “small prizes increase a multiplier for one single chip drop” got lost in the mail somewhere.
That's not the worst idea I've heard. Out of curiosity, are you keeping the zeroes, or do they disappear at some point?
-
This Plinko idea is intriguing.
Are you suggesting the game be played with just one chip total?
I've often felt that for each chip that is dropped, if it does not land into $10,000 slot that it should increase by $10,000, so a player with 4 chips could miss the center slot the first 3 drops but if the 4th chip landed in the middle, their cash total would be augmented to $40,000. THEN Plinko would be a far more worthwhile game!
I recall at least once a woman won all 4 Plinko chips and she ended up getting all zeroes. Perfect pricing and she won ZERO dollars. Yes she won the 4 small prizes, each worth less than $100, but for a huge cash game such as Stinko...but I imagine the powers that be on the show and CBS would never consider trying this idea. For one budgetary issues are considered and for another, so many past players of Plinko might feel slighted by the rule changes but that's just how it goes. Rule changes happen with games all the time.
-
I'd sooner replace the $0s with $500s or something. Decide what you want the minimum prize for a five-chipper to be, and divide it by five.
-
This Plinko idea is intriguing.
Are you suggesting the game be played with just one chip total?
I've often felt that for each chip that is dropped, if it does not land into $10,000 slot that it should increase by $10,000, so a player with 4 chips could miss the center slot the first 3 drops but if the 4th chip landed in the middle, their cash total would be augmented to $40,000. THEN Plinko would be a far more worthwhile game!
Really? With a top prize of $54,000?
-
Nope, still a top prize of $50,000. If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.
-
Then why bother with the other chips at all? Just save the time from the zero drops and go with Jeremy's idea and have one big event.
-
The bother with the other chips...
Let's say the player ends up with a total of 5 chips.
Chip #1 lands in $500
The $10,000 center slot then becomes $20,000.
If chip #2 lands in the $20,000, the player's total will jump from $500 up to $20,000.
In other words the center slot is a progressive jackpot. Each time the center spot is not hit, it grows by $10,000.
So using the same example above, if chip #3 lands in the center slot, that adds another $10,000 so the player would be up to $30,000 after 3 chips.
Chip 4 lands in $100 so now they have $30,100 after 4 chips.
The center slot for the last chip would be $20,000, meaning if the last chip lands in the center, the player's total would jump from $30,100 to $50,000. If the last chip landed in $1,000 for example, the player's final Plinko total would be $31,100.
-
Nope, still a top prize of $50,000. If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.
Bob Stewart is not a good person from whom to steal payout structures.
I'm sure half of you have heard this already, but here's what I've been saying they should do since I can't even remember when anymore if they absolutely need to get Plinko won: If and only if the contestant wins all five chips, after they've all been dropped, they should let the player give up the cash they've won to drop the golden Plinko chip from the MDSs. Whatever it lands in gets multiplied by five, so if they hit $10,000, they get the full $50,000.
On the other hand, if it hits zero...well, 5 x 0 = 0.
It realistically allows the game to be won without absurdly cranking the odds, and it maintains the need to do all the pricing correctly.
-
I recall at least once a woman won all 4 Plinko chips and she ended up getting all zeroes. Perfect pricing and she won ZERO dollars. Yes she won the 4 small prizes, each worth less than $100, but for a huge cash game such as Stinko...but I imagine the powers that be on the show and CBS would never consider trying this idea. For one budgetary issues are considered and for another, so many past players of Plinko might feel slighted by the rule changes but that's just how it goes. Rule changes happen with games all the time.
I remember this with Bob as host. After the woman got five zeros, Bob had a model (Janice?) go up and try her luck for the woman. She got a zero as well.
-
I think the last thing they need to do is cheapen a Plinko win by making it easier. By all means, eliminate the zeros and beef up the other prizes, but leave the ultimate goal alone. Five chips in the center.
-
Nope, still a top prize of $50,000. If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.
Bob Stewart is not a good person from whom to steal payout structures.
I'm sure half of you have heard this already, but here's what I've been saying they should do since I can't even remember when anymore if they absolutely need to get Plinko won: If and only if the contestant wins all five chips, after they've all been dropped, they should let the player give up the cash they've won to drop the golden Plinko chip from the MDSs. Whatever it lands in gets multiplied by five, so if they hit $10,000, they get the full $50,000.
On the other hand, if it hits zero...well, 5 x 0 = 0.
It realistically allows the game to be won without absurdly cranking the odds, and it maintains the need to do all the pricing correctly.
I swear I saw Steve's reply before Bill's 10:09 post ever populated.
Bill, I'm sorry, but your idea of making Plinko progressive is a non-starter. I don't understand the logic behind making the middle slot worth more as the game goes on.
-
Nope, still a top prize of $50,000. If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.
Keep in mind that even though this is a game show centered around numbers, you're gonna confuse a lotta people at home - not to mention the contestants - with this progressive jackpot. And is this progressive jackpot only for every playing? In other words, if they play it tomorrow and the jackpot gets to 50K, will it still be 50K when they play Plinko in a few weeks or reset back to 10K? Because while a say, $130K jackpot sounds appealing, it's hell on the budget and will likely confuse the viewers who don't watch every day.
-
And while Plinko is a luck-based game, it's not a *completely* luck based game. Where you drop the chip from influences the odds, despite few contestants ever seeming to understand that.
-
Nope, still a top prize of $50,000. If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.
Keep in mind that even though this is a game show centered around numbers, you're gonna confuse a lotta people at home - not to mention the contestants - with this progressive jackpot. And is this progressive jackpot only for every playing? In other words, if they play it tomorrow and the jackpot gets to 50K, will it still be 50K when they play Plinko in a few weeks or reset back to 10K? Because while a say, $130K jackpot sounds appealing, it's hell on the budget and will likely confuse the viewers who don't watch every day.
Plus, TPIR episodes do not necessarily air in taping order, and they go into reruns in the summer, so an ongoing progressive jackpot is pretty much out of the question.
-
Plinko has been around for so long, the suggested changes to the gameplay would be about as appaling as changing The Joker's Wild from the original format to (as you all know) a Game of Definitions.
The S.S. Plinko ship has sailed.
-
Except I happen to enjoy Joker90.
Perhaps a bit of actual creativity beyond fried chicken showcases and crossing touch screens would be called for.
-
Rather than progressive jackpots which add a lot math and call for additional props and electronics, why not do what the Brits did? The center slot is worth zero but the slots immediately to its left and right are worth $10,000.
-
What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?
-
What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?
Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.
You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.
-
Rather than progressive jackpots which add a lot math and call for additional props and electronics, why not do what the Brits did? The center slot is worth zero but the slots immediately to its left and right are worth $10,000.
Why not have them gamble their winnings for a car while they're at it?
-
What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?
Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.
You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.
Assuming each fall towards the bottom means one left or right move the chance of a $10,000 win on any chip is roughly one in four, not one in nine. (Note that for someone win $100 the chip can only come in from one side--there's a 50/50 shot to win $500 or $100 from the edge.)
Chances of a perfect run assuming all of the variables are ironed out is about one in a thousand. Taking a page from Jeremy I might have a top prize (let's say $25,000) and every correct either/or choice converts a zero into the top prize. Maybe pull a chip from a hopper to make the choice.
-
1. Stack the Deck: it's just too damn hard and not fun to watch, especially given the fact that it gives away "normal" cars. Maybe if it gave away luxury vehicles it might be more enjoyable.
2. Gridlock!: This is easily the worst of the newest games. It's clunky as hell, slow for what it is, and what the heck is the theme? Traffic? Were they really going for a stuck in traffic theme?
3. Gas Money (under its current rules): I would LOVE to see the show bring back the original "Deal or No Deal"-style rules, where you're stuck with your original choice throughout the game.
I don't have a 4 & 5. lol
-
What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?
Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.
You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.
Assuming each fall towards the bottom means one left or right move the chance of a $10,000 win on any chip is roughly one in four, not one in nine. (Note that for someone win $100 the chip can only come in from one side--there's a 50/50 shot to win $500 or $100 from the edge.)
Chances of a perfect run assuming all of the variables are ironed out is about one in a thousand. Taking a page from Jeremy I might have a top prize (let's say $25,000) and every correct either/or choice converts a zero into the top prize. Maybe pull a chip from a hopper to make the choice.
Well whatever the chances are right now, doubling the number of $10,000s increases the chances by 2^5, or 32x.
-
1. Microwave The Cat
I only liked this one when Gene Wood was doing the fee plugs.
-
1. Stack the Deck: it's just too damn hard and not fun to watch, especially given the fact that it gives away "normal" cars. Maybe if it gave away luxury vehicles it might be more enjoyable.
2. Gridlock!: This is easily the worst of the newest games. It's clunky as hell, slow for what it is, and what the heck is the theme? Traffic? Were they really going for a stuck in traffic theme?
3. Gas Money (under its current rules): I would LOVE to see the show bring back the original "Deal or No Deal"-style rules, where you're stuck with your original choice throughout the game.
I don't have a 4 & 5. lol
From when I first saw Stack the Deck, I thought "It's an okay game." Certainly more fun if the contestant gets all three choices right, and this game is easy to set up a loss.
Gridlock is definitely flawed in terms of execution. In the first playing, I thought it was cool to see the animation of cars crashing with the wrong choices, but apparently when they showed the numbers the contestant chose on the screen, the audience thought the contestant was right (maybe the contestant too). So, I think they stopped using the screen. It's too bad the cars they use DON'T "crash" with the wrong choices.
Gas Money- I know Roger didn't like the rule change. I recall he said that their rule change made the game more like a clone of Danger Price, with it being "Don't pick the right price for the car and eliminate the wrong prices" For me, the original format was basically a reverse of 5 Price Tags. With the rule change, you're not committed to a choice for the right price. I think they felt eliminating picking the right price first making the game easier to win.
-
This Plinko idea is intriguing.
Are you suggesting the game be played with just one chip total?
Yep. Every small prize you get right increases the multiplier on your one drop. My concern in my idea was that there'd be a lot of buildup for only one seven second moment, but really, that's no different than Rat Race or Hole in One.
My idea of “small prizes increase a multiplier for one single chip drop” got lost in the mail somewhere.
That's not the worst idea I've heard. Out of curiosity, are you keeping the zeroes, or do they disappear at some point?
Get rid of the zeroes. The $100 slots can stay.
I think the last thing they need to do is cheapen a Plinko win by making it easier. By all means, eliminate the zeros and beef up the other prizes, but leave the ultimate goal alone. Five chips in the center.
i don't think it's cheapening the outcome if nobody has won the top prize over roughly 1,000 playings of the game. We can't point to a single example of "this is a doable feat", and rarely have we ever been able to see someone do it three times, let alone five.
I'd be more amenable to your thought on this if the money half of Plinko was a game of skill, but it's got lottery game show-levels of randomness. If the game were Hole In One-ish, where contestants aimed for a $10,000 cup (there's an idea), then sure, ultimate goal and all that jazz.
-
Gas Money- I know Roger didn't like the rule change. I recall he said that their rule change made the game more like a clone of Danger Price
Actually, when he discussed the rule change, he never mentioned Danger Price.
-
Gridlock is definitely flawed in terms of execution. In the first playing, I thought it was cool to see the animation of cars crashing with the wrong choices, but apparently when they showed the numbers the contestant chose on the screen, the audience thought the contestant was right (maybe the contestant too). So, I think they stopped using the screen. It's too bad the cars they use DON'T "crash" with the wrong choices.
I've been saying pretty much since the game debuted, but there should be a traffic light on the prop. When Drew asks "Is (s)he right?" the green or red light lights up. Easy for everybody to understand and then they can ditch the awkwardness of playing two sound effects at once on the reveals because it's not immediately intuitive what the revving engine and squealing tire sounds mean.
-
I've been saying pretty much since the game debuted, but there should be a traffic light on the prop. When Drew asks "Is (s)he right?" the green or red light lights up. Easy for everybody to understand and then they can ditch the awkwardness of playing two sound effects at once on the reveals because it's not immediately intuitive what the revving engine and squealing tire sounds mean.
The first two times Gridlock! was played, they actually did something like this -- a "Caution" sign or something along those lines would show up on the price display when the buzzer sounded. I think they stopped because they decided to just stay on a shot of the cars during the reveals instead of doing a wide shot, but it was kind of a neat effect while it lasted.
-
This one is tough for me, because there's definitely 4 least favorite games, and one game that simply annoys me.
Pay the Rent: This one tops the list easily. Too often, the contestant will stop at $10,000 because it is damn near impossible to win the grand prize of $100K. While I get that this game is like a puzzle of sorts, the majority of contestants will not realize that and just try to pick the more expensive prizes as we ascend. Plus, the "secondary" prize for this game is the grand prize in "Grand Game"? Yeah... take the $10K and run.
Time is Money: How often is the $20K won on THIS game? Almost never. In fact, how often is this game even won with any money? Also not often. This is one of the more frustrating games to watch and plays like a more chaotic and disorganized version of "Race Game."
One Wrong Price: Of all the quick-play games, this one has always rubbed me the wrong way because isn't the point to get the prices... right?
Double Cross: Another game with a ton of buildup and rock music that feels unnecessary. This is like a quick game that doesn't play like a quick game.
Cover Up: I do like this game... when it is played the right way. Years ago on the old atgs boards, I feel like this game was discussed at length because one contestant seemed to try and miss all the numbers on purpose... only to actually miss all 5 numbers on the first go. As Drew states, "You only need one number right to remain in the game." I've always felt that the "right way" to play this is get the first number right, miss the 2nd one on purpose and go from there. This act alone increases your chances of winning the game. When I see contestants try to get all the numbers correct right away, that annoys me when they later wind up losing.
-
This one is tough for me, because there's definitely 4 least favorite games, and one game that simply annoys me.
Pay the Rent: This one tops the list easily. Too often, the contestant will stop at $10,000 because it is damn near impossible to win the grand prize of $100K. While I get that this game is like a puzzle of sorts, the majority of contestants will not realize that and just try to pick the more expensive prizes as we ascend. Plus, the "secondary" prize for this game is the grand prize in "Grand Game"? Yeah... take the $10K and run.
Time is Money: How often is the $20K won on THIS game? Almost never. In fact, how often is this game even won with any money? Also not often. This is one of the more frustrating games to watch and plays like a more chaotic and disorganized version of "Race Game."
One Wrong Price: Of all the quick-play games, this one has always rubbed me the wrong way because isn't the point to get the prices... right?
Double Cross: Another game with a ton of buildup and rock music that feels unnecessary. This is like a quick game that doesn't play like a quick game.
Cover Up: I do like this game... when it is played the right way. Years ago on the old atgs boards, I feel like this game was discussed at length because one contestant seemed to try and miss all the numbers on purpose... only to actually miss all 5 numbers on the first go. As Drew states, "You only need one number right to remain in the game." I've always felt that the "right way" to play this is get the first number right, miss the 2nd one on purpose and go from there. This act alone increases your chances of winning the game. When I see contestants try to get all the numbers correct right away, that annoys me when they later wind up losing.
Pay the Rent was much more impossible when there was only ONE combination that worked. After a number of playings, they decided to increase the chances by creating more than one winning solution. Still, 9 times out of 10 this results in walking away with $10k and calling it a game.
I like Time is Money 2.0 far better than it was when Bob hosted. Still, it's possible to walk away with a good hunk of money if you're fast enough.
Double Cross: I don't like that the default setting is a possible choice for two correct prices, and Drew fails to mention that one of the numbers of the price of both prizes DOUBLE CROSS. That's why it's CALLED Double Cross! In theory, the player could just not touch the game at all and leave it as is... making it more like "Switch?"
Cover Up: I didn't understand Drew's aversion to having the wrong numbers displayed. MANY pricing games have an element of "This price is wrong... correct it somehow." Still, when the staff decided to surprise him with 5 images of Drew instead of the numbers, he had a good laugh. Of course since then someone tries to tie in some theme to the 5 images.
-
Cover Up: I didn't understand Drew's aversion to having the wrong numbers displayed. MANY pricing games have an element of "This price is wrong... correct it somehow." Still, when the staff decided to surprise him with 5 images of Drew instead of the numbers, he had a good laugh. Of course since then someone tries to tie in some theme to the 5 images.
That said, considering that the starting price on the board had no connection to the right price, I actually like that they gave this game a spin for Drew. Also really liked when they used old pricing games as the starting marks for S50.
-
3. Gas Money (under its current rules): I would LOVE to see the show bring back the original "Deal or No Deal"-style rules, where you're stuck with your original choice throughout the game.
If they brought back the original rules, I say this: if it gets down to the last 2, first, ask the contestant if they want to stop or go, and if they go, then give them the option to swap - swap the prices at the cost of all the money they've gotten until now, and if they reveal the pink slip, they still lose, but if they reveal the one remaining money amount, they win the car plus the money they revealed. Either way, the outcomes will still be the same - car+money or nothing. The only way to win the full $10,000 is just as before, they had to pick the right price to begin with. The contestant would basically giving up $6k-$9k to swap the prices, and they will have already committed to play on - no takesie-backsies - so maybe it might make the contestant really think about it.
-
One problem with that idea about the option to swap, too much like Barker's Markers/Make Your Mark, which was a game screwed up on thus causing its retirement.
While I do wish they would go back to the original rules where you select the price you believe is the price of the car and remove it from the others, this game is still okay to me.
-
The problem with the old rules to Gas Money is that it's clunky to explain. It's much easier to say "Don't pick the price of the car until the end to win." vs "Pick the price of the car, now eliminate prices one by one to earn money and you have to eliminate all the prices to win." Plus I think it's bad game design to have a game where the contestant winning the car is decided immediately and then having to go through the process to earn cash when the final result has already been decided.
-
I thought it worked fine. It's Car or No Car as a pricing game.
-
The current version of Gas Money is easy to parse if it's phrased as "Earn $10,000 before picking the car and you win everything." It also tracks to some extent that if you get a pink slip you're done. :P
I agree with everyone who thinks the game of Gridlock! is lacking, but the set piece is reminiscent of all those pricing game contraptions of the 70's and 80's, so it has a little bit of charm.
-
I agree with everyone who thinks the game of Gridlock! is lacking, but the set piece is reminiscent of all those pricing game contraptions of the 70's and 80's, so it has a little bit of charm.
The problem for me is that the mammoth set piece basically hides a nothing game. Money Game at least has the charm of wrong answers paying off and you get more chances. Gridlock is a game where I groan and hit fast forward.
I don't have a problem with Gas Money but wouldn't mind if they cranked up the risk factor with nicer but not luxury cars.