The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Match Game 1990-91 thoughts
Adam Nedeff:
Watching more of Match Game '90 and there's another issue that sticks out to me--playing for cash doesn't work on this show.
With the format as it aired--for Final Match-Up, the game STOPS as soon as the player who goes second takes the lead. That makes sense, but it pretty much means the amount of money that you can win depends on how good your opponent is at the game. Some contestants win $1200-$1300, but then one contestant is saddled against a bad opponent and ends up with $500 because they only needed to play Final Match-Up for 10 seconds. And if they played all the way through, it would be anticlimactic.
And if they just played standard Match Game rounds for cash, what do you do in the same situation? It looks awkward again. "You matched Charles and that means you win the game!....Oh, uh, let's see what everyone on the bottom tier said...okay, that's a match so you win more money...not a match...and another match for more money." There's just not a graceful way to give contestants money with this structure.
whewfan:
As "out of place" as Match Up seems, I think Match Game 1998 shows why Match Up makes the game more fair. I always
thought that MG 98's scoring format was broken. Pearson, the company that owned MG productions then, wasn't satisfied
with the lack of matching on that version of Match Game, so consequentially the questions were written with only one or two possible answers. It also didn't help that the panel made no attempts to be discreet in copying off each other... they looked like a class of students cheating on a test with no teacher in the room. So, that made the game less fun knowing that all the celebs would have the same answer. With each celeb having the same answer, that meant either you would match everyone or no one. With the MG 98 scoring format, there was no room for error. So, I think Match Up takes off the pressure to have to match each celeb TWICE to secure a win. On the 70s version, you only had to match each celeb once.
Ross was just fine for me. His more reserved style allowed the panel more leeway to be more funny. I do think the panel selection was sometimes hit or miss, but I think overall they kept within the spirit of the game.
Edited to remove a bunch of blank lines at the end of the post. -knagl
TimK2003:
--- Quote ---It also didn't help that the panel made no attempts to be discreet in copying off each other... they looked like a class of students cheating on a test with no teacher in the room.
--- End quote ---
A bad trait that carried over to the Alec Baldwin version as well.
Jeremy Nelson:
--- Quote from: Adam Nedeff on February 21, 2025, 02:31:57 AM ---With the format as it aired--for Final Match-Up, the game STOPS as soon as the player who goes second takes the lead. That makes sense, but it pretty much means the amount of money that you can win depends on how good your opponent is at the game. Some contestants win $1200-$1300, but then one contestant is saddled against a bad opponent and ends up with $500 because they only needed to play Final Match-Up for 10 seconds. And if they played all the way through, it would be anticlimactic.
--- End quote ---
I think the easy fix here is just having the leader play first.
--- Quote from: JohnXXVII on February 20, 2025, 02:52:22 PM ---What was Mark Goodson's beef with having a show that emphasized the comedy?
--- End quote ---
I think Jonathan was the one handling things by 1990, no?
Matt Ottinger:
--- Quote from: Jeremy Nelson on February 21, 2025, 09:54:04 AM ---
--- Quote from: Adam Nedeff on February 21, 2025, 02:31:57 AM ---With the format as it aired--for Final Match-Up, the game STOPS as soon as the player who goes second takes the lead. That makes sense, but it pretty much means the amount of money that you can win depends on how good your opponent is at the game. Some contestants win $1200-$1300, but then one contestant is saddled against a bad opponent and ends up with $500 because they only needed to play Final Match-Up for 10 seconds. And if they played all the way through, it would be anticlimactic.
--- End quote ---
I think the easy fix here is just having the leader play first.
--- End quote ---
Not really. I mean, sure, it "solves" the money issue, but it creates a bigger issue in that most of the games would end with a loss, rather than most of the games ending with a win. You really want the latter, which is why in a lot of games like this, the one who's trailing goes first.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version