why people don't play open
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:20 pm
a certain pub i go into (because it has a good cellar) recently replaced a paragon for a open/dice/whatever. i realise that it is the cheapo option but i have spoken with the publican about why this was such a catastrophic move.
here are some of many reasons why open is shite:
1. nobody ever plays it
1a. (because the customer expects some value for money.)
2. it forces mugs to play £1 games which are entirely uninteresting
3. it is far too slow
4. whoever wrote the questions has c&ped wikipedia without any regard to fact. this is both boring and misleading for the customer.
5. the questions are so long and therefore the fount is so tiny that you have to read all this crap before you actually know what it is asking you. when you eventually get to the salient point of the question, the bar has called orders and you are the only one left in the pub, cursing your rotten luck to be playing this game. by the way, what was the first number one out of these three forgettable singles: X, Y, Z, Z again.
6. the games are not attractive. at all.
7. for the above reasons, see 1.
a couple of isolated incidents:
in a moment of weak blindness, i played the boxing game (which has nicknames of boxers rather than infringe any copyrights
). the first question was some obvious 2+2 job, then the second question asked "what is the maximum swooping speed of an american condor?" the second question on a £1 game? boys, oh dear. really?
it might have been witty if there had been the (very) obvious reference to MP&THG but no, it was a straight (assumed) fact.
you would have to say that that is incredibly lazy production values for what is a static game with minimal value for the customer's purchase. any idiot knows that his consumer is the end user not the cretinous middleman.
and just before i lost the will to live, another clownish game asked me "who was the 16th president of the USA?" aside from the obvious, and assuming your man in the pub hasn't bothered to learn the list, who cares?
please feel free to add your own reasons why your local should not have such an unappetising menu.
here are some of many reasons why open is shite:
1. nobody ever plays it
1a. (because the customer expects some value for money.)
2. it forces mugs to play £1 games which are entirely uninteresting
3. it is far too slow
4. whoever wrote the questions has c&ped wikipedia without any regard to fact. this is both boring and misleading for the customer.
5. the questions are so long and therefore the fount is so tiny that you have to read all this crap before you actually know what it is asking you. when you eventually get to the salient point of the question, the bar has called orders and you are the only one left in the pub, cursing your rotten luck to be playing this game. by the way, what was the first number one out of these three forgettable singles: X, Y, Z, Z again.
6. the games are not attractive. at all.
7. for the above reasons, see 1.
a couple of isolated incidents:
in a moment of weak blindness, i played the boxing game (which has nicknames of boxers rather than infringe any copyrights
). the first question was some obvious 2+2 job, then the second question asked "what is the maximum swooping speed of an american condor?" the second question on a £1 game? boys, oh dear. really?it might have been witty if there had been the (very) obvious reference to MP&THG but no, it was a straight (assumed) fact.
you would have to say that that is incredibly lazy production values for what is a static game with minimal value for the customer's purchase. any idiot knows that his consumer is the end user not the cretinous middleman.
and just before i lost the will to live, another clownish game asked me "who was the 16th president of the USA?" aside from the obvious, and assuming your man in the pub hasn't bothered to learn the list, who cares?
please feel free to add your own reasons why your local should not have such an unappetising menu.
