Author Topic: The Great Pricing Game Layoff of '85  (Read 3003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline b_masters8

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: The Great Pricing Game Layoff of '85
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2023, 03:51:40 AM »
The problem with On the Nose for me was that the contestant could get the right price and still lose because they weren't very familiar with the sport they were playing.

Yes, but even if they lost, if they had the right price, they still at least had that $1000 bonus to fall back on, so that's a small saving grace, IMO.

Offline brosa0

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1060
  • The answer is meat
Re: The Great Pricing Game Layoff of '85
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2023, 06:52:32 AM »
Balance Game was a perfectly fine game that was crippled by two things:
1) Bob's overly wordy explanation of it, which was reminiscent of how he would over-explain some of the earlier games like Mystery Price.  Too much emphasis was placed on the Barker dollars in the explanation and the explanation of the contestant's $5 buffer to win was atrocious.  I can't believe they weren't able to resolve this and simplify his explanation.

2) A dreadfully unhelpful prop that should've aided the contestant's understanding of the game by displaying the progressive totals of each side of the scale as well as how much money the contestant needed to add to the lower side in order to win, but did neither of these things.   Bob had to chide the off-screen 'scorekeeper' on the debut playing because they had added the prices incorrectly for him to relay back to the contestant and audience!

I feel like both of these issues would've been solved had the game come along in the past 10 years.  Drew would find a way to simplify the explanation and the show would've redesigned the prop to include monitor/s (like Card Game) so that a contestant could understand the game just by looking at it.

It probably didn't help that Pick A Pair had a similar concept but in a simpler way (i.e. pick two items that balance/equal each other), but Balance Game definitely deserved the opportunity to have the above issues be fixed before being retired.

On The Nose - I don't mind this game but the rotating sports concept seemed to limit its potential lifespan.  They would've been better off picking one sport and sticking to it.  The tennis game was the worst given the extra coordination involved.

I never liked Super Ball, but I've long thought that they could've adopted On The Nose's pricing portion for Super Ball to reduce that game's runtime and keep it in the rotation if they wanted.

Walk Of Fame - the concept of this game is sound; I love the front game with the changing ranges, along with a 'fun' way of earning a second chance to stay in the game if needed.  However, the autograph books aren't fun at all given how difficult it is to see them on camera and how much flicking through the pages slows the game down.  They could've done anything with the basic concept of the fun second chance, but I don't think the autograph books were it.

Trader Bob - I really dislike this game due to how forgettable it is.  7 small items is far too many and drags on for too long for such a limp payoff in the end reveal of the prices.  I think I'd only rank Poker Game and Double Bullseye below this game.


Offline ThatDonGuy

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
Re: The Great Pricing Game Layoff of '85
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2023, 11:06:54 PM »
Balance Game's problem was similar to one that Pay The Rent has; the "obvious" strategy almost never works.

In much the same way that just about everybody who plays PTR puts the cheapest item on the bottom, just about everybody I saw playing original BG put two items that were close in price on opposite sides, then kept putting items on the "lighter" side, which changed from one side to the other as each item was placed.