Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Watson ruined J! for me  (Read 1950 times)

alfonzos

  • Member
  • Posts: 1050
Watson ruined J! for me
« on: May 22, 2025, 12:54:32 PM »
I enjoy playing along with the contestants. That is got me hooked on “Concentration” at the age of four. Anyway, “Jeopardy!” never was my strongest game and the current version only tempers my enthusiasm. It used to be that the players would start with the easy answers and work their way toward the harder one. If I couldn’t play along at least the show was building to a climax.

Now that Watson has shown that the way to win is controlling Daily Doubles players are going all over the board shopping for them. I find this unsatisfying as a viewer. It doesn’t help that I don’t really care who wins.

I guess I will have to stick to the home games.
A Cliff Saber Production
email address: alfonzos@aol.com
Boardgame Geek user name: alfonzos

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 18908
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2025, 01:14:45 PM »
Is that Watson or Arthur Chu, tho? Feels like he brought back the “Forrest Bounce” fishing for Daily Doubles.
"You must be in the lobby at the dentist, 'cause you're watching the Game Show Network!"

wdm1219inpenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 284
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2025, 02:18:54 PM »
For me, Jeopardy is no fun anymore, not only due to players hopping around and starting with the harder clues, but also the far too "niche" categories used anymore.

I would not mind if a board had 1 or maybe 2 niche categories per round but most times 3 to 4 categories or more are just weird categories to me anymore.

chad1m

  • Member
  • Posts: 2923
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2025, 03:04:44 PM »
"niche" categories
I'm legitimately curious. What's an example of a "'niche' category" to you?

Joe Mello

  • Member
  • Posts: 3552
  • has hit the time release button
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2025, 04:05:14 PM »
"niche" categories
I'm legitimately curious. What's an example of a "'niche' category" to you?
For fun I checked the most recent episodes on J-archive because I think I know what the complaint is and I can see how a definition of "niche categories" could be an aesthetic bugbear for some.

I'm generally neutral-to-positive about the categories they write but then I see "GEOLOGIC TIME DIVISIONS AS FRIENDS EPISODE TITLES"
This signature is currently under construction.

Fedya

  • Member
  • Posts: 2119
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2025, 06:33:28 PM »
Since we've got a new thread about people's J! bugaboos, let me add that the producers should ban the word "colorful" from clues.
-- Ted Schuerzinger, now blogging at <a href=\"http://justacineast.blogspot.com/\" target=\"_blank\">http://justacineast.blogspot.com/[/url]

No Fark slashes were harmed in the making of this post

Strikerz04

  • Member
  • Posts: 987
  • The Money Will be Spent
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2025, 08:57:39 PM »
Is that Watson or Arthur Chu, tho? Feels like he brought back the “Forrest Bounce” fishing for Daily Doubles.
I'd presume Arthur did that (and honestly, it's not a bad thing to do). Everyone else followed suit after that.If anything, the Master's series broke my brain and further proof that I (and my partner, for that matter, also a Jeopardy nerd) are mere mortals.

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 16199
  • Rules Constable
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2025, 08:21:02 AM »
It seems odd to say Watson ruined Jeopardy when we are 14 years gone from it. I’d say if you don’t like it, don’t watch but I’d rather discuss critiques that are more recent.
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.

rstrata

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2025, 11:12:50 AM »
It seems odd to say Watson ruined Jeopardy when we are 14 years gone from it. I’d say if you don’t like it, don’t watch but I’d rather discuss critiques that are more recent.

that awful upstart Trebek ruined J! for me

he’s certainly no Art Fleming, that’s for sure

SamJ93

  • Member
  • Posts: 887
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2025, 03:49:56 PM »
While Watson was definitely mis-blamed in the title of the OP, it's definitely fair to say that the tactics of several recent long-running champs (Chu, Holzhauer, Amodio, etc.), coupled with Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport," have made the show feel less accessible to casual fans and non-hardcore trivia buffs. I hesitate to call a format that hasn't really changed much in 60+ years "broken," but the Internet and the ability of just about anyone to analyze the best strategies for the game have definitely caught up with it, and even though fans will scream bloody murder, they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later. I know it probably would never happen, but just as a brainstorm, I would consider bringing back a staple of the B&E quizzers of the '50s...at the end of each show, the champ has the option to quit with their winnings or come back. If they choose to continue and lose, however, the new champ's winnings come out of their score.
"Pier 1 Imports...where they got the greatest junk in the world." --Stefan Hatos

Kevin Prather

  • Member
  • Posts: 6878
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2025, 04:25:37 PM »
It seems to me the "problem" of players hunting for Daily Doubles is incredibly easy to fix. Start putting them in the top row more often, and maybe even put both in the same category. Make it truly arbitrary where they go.

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 16199
  • Rules Constable
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2025, 05:02:52 PM »
I don't know that it is arbitrary because you want those clues to have a bit more thought and time devoted to them, but to your point, what if it was a truly random selection?

If we're in this next iteration of Jeopardy, why don't we have players cracking fifty grand on the regular? It seems like for every winner of twenty grand we get three games where the players are barely clearing half the cash on the board? Where are the players who are winning those thirty and forty game runs? Perhaps it is that the players we are seeing are by and large not capable of winning fifty grand a day for a month, and that's fine. I prefer the aberrations be rare.

If you don't like players playing bottom up or hopscotch? That's fine, but let's be honest about it. If there's a champion I don't care for I will blip to FJ to see fi there's a turnover. There are lots of shows I don't watch because I don't find them compelling or compelling enough to bump off something else. I don't think it is fair to say "Watson ruined it" given how far away we are from that.
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.

JasonA1

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 3252
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2025, 07:03:03 PM »
It seems to me the "problem" of players hunting for Daily Doubles is incredibly easy to fix. Start putting them in the top row more often, and maybe even put both in the same category. Make it truly arbitrary where they go.

A noble thought, but I think no matter where you put Daily Doubles, you're not going to undo the behavior of players looking for them above all else. Or at the very least, changing the common locations wouldn't suddenly make people play in the top-down-dominant style of the '80s and '90s. If DDs were suddenly in the top row even 10% of the time, that would be a problem of a different stripe, where these (often) game-deciding clues are now much, much easier.

And despite Alex supporting the notion in interviews, and the writers even calling out, I never bought that idea that categories are much easier to play if taken top-down. Every once in a while, a wordplay tack is hard to grasp without an easier-to-play example, or something like that. But for the most part, the order doesn't seem to inform understanding or success.

-Jason
Game Show Forum Muckety-Muck

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 13162
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2025, 07:52:59 PM »
The incredibly easy fix, to the degree that this is actually a "problem", is simply to make it a rule that they have to play categories top to bottom.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

MSTieScott

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Watson ruined J! for me
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2025, 04:08:04 AM »
Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport,"
they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later.

The first part is why the second part won't happen. Sports generally don't introduce game-altering changes on a regular basis. In the past couple of decades, there's been Major League Baseball's pitch timer... and anything else?


And despite Alex supporting the notion in interviews, and the writers even calling out, I never bought that idea that categories are much easier to play if taken top-down.

While I agree that not every category is made easier if played from the top to the bottom, there are instances when being exposed to earlier clues can help. For example, if a contestant is unsure whether a bottom-row clue is referring to Monet or Renoir, if a previous clue in the category already mentioned one of the two artists, the contestant would know to eliminate that option.

The benefit becomes more apparent in a category with a limited number of possible responses -- for example, a category in which all the answers are continents. Or a category that aired a little under a month ago in which the contestants had to identify the silent vowel in a word -- if the category had been played top to bottom, the fourth-row clue probably wouldn't have been a stand-and-stare.

There are also benefits for the home audience, and not just the more satisfying feeling of material gradually increasing in difficulty as the round progresses. For the categories in which the writers attempt a clever-but-convoluted manner of presenting all five clues, it's no fun when a contestant starts with the second-hardest clue, none of the contestants understand what's going on, and the host has to explain what the contestants were expected to do after no one rings in. Better to have all that happen during the clue with the lowest stakes... or maybe that first clue is easy enough that the gimmick is more evident, demonstrating to everybody how the category works. (This is also the case for categories in which the host explains at the top of the round what the contestants will have to do, the category isn't selected until the round is halfway over, and everybody has forgotten that they need to, say, respond with the name of the movie character.)

It doesn't help with every category, or even a majority of categories (however, note how useful it was in the "P"s & "Q"s category in the linked episode), but when it goes wrong, it's rough to watch.