After going through the full experience of Clique83’s Trying the Taste of Love in Ho Chi Minh City, the clearest way to evaluate it is not by asking whether it was good or bad.
That is too blunt.
The better question is whether the event created enough value, through its structure, interactions, and outcomes, to justify the time, money, and effort required to attend.
For me, the answer is mixed.
My overall view is that this was a thoughtfully designed, socially elevated, and generally well-run event with several strong ideas behind it. At the same time, it was also uneven in execution, especially in the earlier phases, and for my own situation it did not quite justify the price.
What Worked Best
1. The one-on-one rounds
This was the strongest part of the event by a clear margin.
Once the event moved into direct one-on-one conversations, the structure finally aligned with the purpose. Sit down, introduce yourself, get a read on the other person, move on, repeat. Simple. Clean. Efficient.
The earlier parts of the evening had moments of ambiguity, but the one-on-one rounds delivered the core promise of speed dating. Everyone got a defined chance to interact. That is where the event became most useful.
2. The delayed gift exchange
This turned out to be one of the smarter design choices of the night.
At first, the White Day gift requirement felt like an extra ritual layered on top of the ticket price. But later, when it became clear that one of the formal one-on-one conversations had been intentionally withheld and tied to the gift exchange, the logic made more sense.
That was clever. It created anticipation, gave the gift mechanic an actual payoff, and engineered one final moment of access that would not otherwise have happened.
For me, that design worked.
3. The event’s overall level of intention
Whatever its flaws, this was not a lazy event.
The organizers clearly put thought into the flow, the branding, the activities, the matching tools, and the overall atmosphere. The room felt more polished and more elevated than a casual mixer. The crowd also seemed more intentional than average.
That matters. A curated environment can create a better dating experience than a loose social free-for-all, provided the structure actually supports the people in the room.
4. The professionalism of the organizers
Throughout the night, there were small moments that required live adjustment. In those moments, the organizers generally came across as composed and professional.
That is not a small thing. Good event management is often invisible when it works. Here, even when I noticed it, it mostly added confidence rather than subtracting from it.
5. The post-event group chat
I liked the idea of giving participants a shared group channel after the event.
It extended the life of the event beyond the room, created optionality, and made the whole thing feel less like a hard stop. In practice, that gave people one more layer of social continuation, including the possibility of an after-party or later follow-up.
That was a worthwhile addition.
What Worked Least
1. The matching and follow-up logic was inconsistent
This was the biggest design problem.
On the one hand, the event used a mutual-match structure, where participants selected who they wanted to connect with and the implication was that access would depend on shared interest.
On the other hand, the event also added everyone to a common group chat, where participants could potentially identify and message each other directly anyway. There was also a group photo that could be used to help identify participants afterward, and then a next-day feedback form that appeared to be tied, at least in part, to receiving matches.
That created a layered but unclear system.
If mutual matching was the gatekeeper, then the group chat weakened it. If open participant access was the real model, then the formal match became less necessary. And if feedback submission was also positioned as part of the path to getting matches, that only added another step to a process that was already no longer clean.
Each tool made some sense on its own. Together, they made the closing and follow-up logic feel blurred.
2. The mini games were uneven
The mini games were the weakest part of the night overall.
The issue was not that structured activities are bad. The issue was that these activities depended too heavily on the exact group composition, the quality of the prompts, and the cultural or language fit of the participants.
When the group chemistry was right, the structure became functional. When it was not, the mechanic just sat there and created drag.
That is too fragile for something meant to generate momentum.
3. The event was effectively Vietnamese-first
This was a real factor throughout.
I can speak Vietnamese to a degree, but not with full range or ease. Since most of the event was conducted almost entirely in Vietnamese, there were multiple moments where I had to infer instructions, rely on context, or ask someone nearby what was happening.
Again, that is not automatically a flaw if the event is intended primarily for Vietnamese-native participants. But it does mean the event was not fully integrated for people operating across languages. And in my case, that shaped the quality of participation.
4. Some of the interaction mechanics were under-executed
The bingo activity is the clearest example.
The concept was understandable. The problem was that it was introduced without really being activated. Once people were already standing around tables in little clusters, the social cost of interrupting those conversations was too high for the activity to function naturally.
That is a design problem, not a participant problem.
5. Small logistical frictions kept showing up
The venue was initially a little hard to find. Table numbering was not always easy to see. It was sometimes unclear who was staff and who was simply attending.
None of these issues were catastrophic. But in live social events, repeated minor friction matters more than people think. Every unnecessary moment of confusion takes attention away from the actual social objective.
Post-Event Follow-Up Added Another Layer of Redundancy
One more thing reinforced this for me the next day.
After the event, I received a feedback form asking how everything went. On its own, that made sense. Asking for feedback after a live event is reasonable, and in principle it gives organizers a chance to improve the experience.
But the form also highlighted the same design overlap I had already noticed the night before.
Part of the messaging around it suggested that filling out the form was tied to getting your matches. The problem, at least in my case, was that I had effectively already gotten my matches outside that process. Between the group chat, the social visibility created during the event, and the other channels already opened up by the organizers, the formal match-delivery step no longer felt essential.
That made the form feel less like a necessary part of the matching process and more like another layer added onto an already crowded system.
There was also a smaller issue with the feedback form itself. Some of the questions pointed toward preset answers without really giving space for more specific written feedback, at least not in the areas where I would have wanted to comment more directly. In other words, even when feedback was being collected, the structure of the form did not fully support the kind of nuanced response that a more detailed event review might actually require.
That matters because post-event follow-up is part of the product, not separate from it.
If the event uses mutual matching, group chat access, group photos for identification, and then a separate form tied in some way to match release, the participant experience starts to feel over-layered. Each individual mechanism may make sense on its own, but together they blur the logic of how connection is actually supposed to happen.
That was the broader pattern for me. The event had several good ideas, but by the end it was using too many overlapping paths to accomplish what should ideally feel like one clear closing system.
Was It Worth the Price?
For me, probably not.
And the reason is simple: value is comparative.
The event cost roughly the equivalent of one hundred Canadian dollars, plus time, transportation, grooming, and the added White Day gift expense. In return, I got a few hours of structured interaction, some useful observations, and a limited number of women I was actually interested in.
That is not nothing. But it was not enough to outperform the alternatives already available to me.
In my own case, dating apps are currently producing a better return at a lower effective cost. That makes this event harder to justify on pure outcome. If I think in terms of return on investment, the channel simply did not beat the competition.
Now, that does not mean the event was overpriced for everyone.
For someone who dislikes dating apps, wants a more curated in-person experience, values a more polished social setting, or has weaker access to quality dates through other channels, this event may well be worth it. The value depends on the participant’s alternatives.
That is the real answer.
Final Ranking
Best parts
1. One-on-one rounds
2. Delayed gift exchange and withheld interaction
3. Overall curation and event intention
4. Professionalism of the organizers
5. Group chat continuation
Weakest parts
1. Matching and follow-up logic
2. Mini game execution
3. Language accessibility
4. Passive bingo format
5. Small logistical friction
Final Verdict
Clique83’s Trying the Taste of Love was a generally good event with real structure, clear effort behind it, and several thoughtful design decisions.
Its strongest feature was the one-on-one format, which delivered on the core promise of the evening. Its smartest feature was the delayed gift exchange, which created a genuine moment of payoff. Its weakest areas were the mini games, the language dependence, and the slightly conflicting connection model at the end.
So was it worth attending?
Yes, as an experience.
Maybe, as a dating channel.
No, for me personally at the current price.
That is probably the fairest conclusion.
