Arrrrrrrsssseeeeniiiiooo Haaaaalllll,

[tyshaun1]

Star Search is a "game" in loosest sense of the term. No one is going to sit at home and play Star Search (or Average Joe, for that matter) with their friends and family. But, back to the original question,  does this qualify as a game under GSN's new standards? The answer is yes, since apparently GSN thinks of SPY TV, Vegas Weddings and Average Joe as "games". Now, to get back to playing the home game of the Miss USA Pagaent.

Tyshaun

[uncamark]

The last time we went over this, Chris C. proclaimed that a game show is essentially an unjudged competition that tests skill, luck or instincts, no matter if there's a prize offered or not.  Under his definition, *all* talent contests and shows like "Survivor" aren't game shows because they depend on a judged decision for the winner, even if they do contain unjudged competition elements.  However, "TWL" does count as a game show because even if most of the game's outcomes are judged, the winner in the end is the one with the most correct answers in the final round.  Something I would easily agree with.

However, for the layman game shows are mixed in with all other unscripted programming, including talent contests, relationship shows, hidden-camera shows, etc.  All of which allows GSN to widen its programming net.

While thinking this over, I just came to a realization that in many ways, "Truth or Consequences," the show considered the granddaddy of all non-quiz game shows, is not really a game show.  Yes, some of the stunts were competitions against the house or others (particularly the "Hush/Walking Man" contests on the radio version).  However, so many stunts on the show were just observations of human nature, practical jokes or set-ups for reunions, with the contestants receiving the prizes no matter what the outcome.  Also, the basic "game" of "if you don't tell the truth, you must pay the consequnces" had become by the Barker era purely a mechanic, since the contestants were going to participate in the stunt no matter what and the questions had gone from obscure knowledge to silly riddles like the catch-up round on "Cram" (much of the time Barker didn't even do the question, especially since he spent more time on the contestant interviews than his predecessors or successors).

Something to think about.

[CaseyAbell]

Chris C. proclaimed that a game show is essentially an unjudged competition that tests skill, luck or instincts, no matter if there's a prize offered or not.

So Chris C. also hit on the judging - or lack of it, or minimization of it - as a critical identifier for what most folks call a game show.

I could say something about great minds here, but I could also catch a lotta grief.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 08:48 AM\'] Personal example: my wife's a classical soprano and she LOVES singing, even in an empty warehouse, even if there's no prize money, publicity, street buzz or national exposure involved. [/quote]
 But that's the same trap that I mentioned in my post. Your wife enjoying singing FOR THE SAKE OF SINGING. At worst, she does it for the joy of performing for herself, if not for others. (And there's nothing wrong with that.)

But the act of being on Star Search is not just singing (or dancing, or telling jokes, or whatever), it is the act of being judged arbitrarily against someone else to see who they thought was better at the activity. THAT is the part that I question whether your wife (or anyone else) would be willing to take part in with nothing to be gained. And I mean NOTHING. No tangible prize, no public recognition, and I'll go so far as to suggest that the "contestants" would have to sign a waiver swearing never to reveal the results to a soul. At BEST they walk out knowing that four people thought their performance was better than someone elses, and then we start getting into issues of psychological justification.

[CaseyAbell]

But the act of being on Star Search is not just singing (or dancing, or telling jokes, or whatever), it is the act of being judged arbitrarily against someone else to see who they thought was better at the activity. THAT is the part that I question whether your wife (or anyone else) would be willing to take part in with nothing to be gained.

Sorry, but my wife has done this. Many times, in fact. She has often gone to auditions at volunteer singing groups - no money, publicity, street buzz, etc.,  involved at all - where she was judged (let's hope not completely arbitrarily, but there have been cases...) against other people trying to get into the group.

She purely LOVED the competition. It stimulated her, got her interested in perfecting her craft, motivated her practicing, etc.

And she didn't get a dime for it. She got no publicity for it. She got NOTHING for it (I should know, I keep track of our bank account) except personal satisfaction. These were (and are) unpaid groups who sing in pretty thorough anonymity. It really is very similar to your empty-warehouse thought example.

And, of course, all the other people who auditioned for the groups similarly got nothing for their pains except personal satisfaction. There are literally tens of thousands of people across the country who have auditioned for such volunteer classical singing groups.

Now I'm sure that passing an audition is more fun than failing, and happily my wife has rarely failed at anything involving vocal ability. But many, many people have done exactly what you suggest nobody would be willing to do.

I'm also sure that many contestants on Star Search are somewhat similar to these folks. They're in it - at least to some extent - for the fun of the competition and to show off their skills. Just as I'm sure that some contestants on Jeopardy are in it to show off their knowledge and to enjoy the game.

Yes, there's an obvious monetary motivation in both cases as well. For some contestants on both shows, it may be the primary motivation. As I said before, I'd guess that almost all contestants on both shows have a mix of motives.

So, indeed, this looks more like a similarity between the two types of shows rather than a difference.

But I noticed you slipped in a bit about the judging on talent contests. And I agree with Chris C. that the real difference lies here.

[tyshaun1]

The definition of game, paraphrasing Merriam-Webster.com, is a competition where the contestants play directly against each other and can affect each other's participation. A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor.  Therefore, shows such as Jeopardy! or WOF can be considered true "games", since the outcome is decided by the players, whereas shows such as Star Serach and American Idol differ becasue they are decided, not by the players, but by outside parties.

Tyshaun

[CaseyAbell]

A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor.

You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split.

Now, I think the comment about judging is the real difference, but not between a "contest" and a "game." I don't think there's much real difference between a contest and a game at all. That's why people often use the words interchangeably to describe, say, three Jeopardy CONTESTants playing against each other.

I do think there's a real distinction between what most people call a "talent contest" and what most people call a "game show." And it has to do with the subjectivity of the judging, which is extreme on talent contests and held to a minimum on game shows.

Wow, this is getting weird. But it's still kinda fun.

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:08 PM\']

A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor.

You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split.

Now, I think the comment about judging is the real difference, but not between a "contest" and a "game." I don't think there's much real difference between a contest and a game at all. That's why people often use the words interchangeably to describe, say, three Jeopardy CONTESTants playing against each other.

I do think there's a real distinction between what most people call a "talent contest" and what most people call a "game show." And it has to do with the subjectivity of the judging, which is extreme on talent contests and held to a minimum on game shows.

Wow, this is getting weird. But it's still kinda fun. [/quote]
But their and your performance in a contest is not for you or them to decide, it's someone else's. Like what happened on American Idol a couple of weeks ago, the stronger singer lost out to a couple of generally considered weaker ones. As opposed to a game, where YOU control you and your opponent's fate (unless it's the R word ). Finally seeing the difference?
 You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose. The end.

Tyshaun

[CaseyAbell]

You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose.

I'm sorry, but this is really losing me. Are you saying that Jeopardy ISN'T a contest between the three, er, CONTESTants? What else is it then? Again, I think the distinction you're trying to make between a "contest" and a "game" is simply unjustified by the common usage of the two words. I would use both words to describe Jeopardy, and I think most people would agree with me.

This is clearly territory where exact proofs are impossible. But it's still fun to shoot the breeze.

[JacksonBrowne1980]

star search was a cool show in the 1980s; i dunno the specific date in 1983 it aired on, but it did premiere in 1983.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 02:08 PM\'] You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split. [/quote]
 But they don't have the ability, for example, to make you sing worse because they sing better.  Their actions do not have a bearing on your actions.  Except in a psychological way, but that's really just you doing it to yourself when you think about it.  Everybody just does whatever it is they do independently of one another, and in the end somebody wins.

In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.  True, there's no judging, there is a specific, identifiable way of seeing which person did better.  Still, I can't block your shot or impede you from doing what you do, I can only try to do better than you at around the same period of time.  That would also appear to be true of most track events.

I definitely see that distinction, and if that's how the dictionary separates a game and a contest, so be it.  Still, in a thesaurus, contest and game both appear alongside "competition".  Like Casey says, debating the nuances and the hair splitting is fun as long as we all stay friendly about it.

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:30 PM\']

You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose.

I'm sorry, but this is really losing me. Are you saying that Jeopardy ISN'T a contest between the three, er, CONTESTants? What else is it then? Again, I think the distinction you're trying to make between a "contest" and a "game" is simply unjustified by the common usage of the two words. I would use both words to describe Jeopardy, and I think most people would agree with me.

This is clearly territory where exact proofs are impossible. But it's still fun to shoot the breeze. [/quote]
 I wasn't talking about Jeopardy!, I referenced American Idol and Star Search in my post; you're dragging Jeopardy! into it. What I'm saying is that any competition that is decided by a 3rd party is defined as a contest, and one that is decided directly by the players is a game. SS and AI are decided by judges (voters), not necessarily by the participants, and J! is decided by the direct performance of the players.

I will admit, this argument could go on for days, though, so I will just let this topic die (for now ).

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'JacksonBrowne1980\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:47 PM\'] star search was a cool show in the 1980s; i dunno the specific date in 1983 it aired on, but it did premiere in 1983. [/quote]
 And once again, Erik comes along and makes this seem irrelevant doesn't he?

Tyshaun

[CaseyAbell]

In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.

This would cut out a fair number of what most people would consider sports. You mention track and field, but we could also toss out figure skating, speed skating, rowing, skiing, bobsled and luge, swimming and diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, bicycling, marksmanship and archery, equestrian events...man, we're starting to get rid of a lot of the Olympics. How will NBC fill all that time?

This doesn't have anything to do with game shows. I'm just maundering along.

I wasn't talking about Jeopardy!, I referenced American Idol and Star Search in my post; you're dragging Jeopardy! into it.

The only reason I'm using Jeopardy is that it's a classic example of what most people would call a game show. And I think there is a difference between such a show and a talent contest. I just don't think it has anything to do with an at best miniscule (and to me invisible) distinction between a "contest" and a "game."

In fact, I've lost track of why you wanted to draw the distinction in the first place. Maybe one of these days I'll go back over the thread and see why we got side-tracked. For now, I'll agree to give the whole subject a rest.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 03:41 PM\']

In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.

This would cut out a fair number of what most people would consider sports. You mention track and field, but we could also toss out figure skating, speed skating, rowing, skiing, bobsled and luge, swimming and diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, bicycling, marksmanship and archery, equestrian events... [/quote]
 Uh...yeah, precisely.  With the possible exception of bicycling which, like auto racing, has a lot strategic components with respect to other competitors, these would all be examples of contests rather than games.  And despite your protestations, I believe you do see the distinction or else you would have included other Olympic events (water polo, soccer, even curling) that we would consider "games".

Also, you mentioned common usage, and I think there is a relevant point here.  In sports, you tend to think of a baseball "game" and a football "game" and a basketball "game".  But you don't as naturally think of a figure skating "game" or an archery "game".  You don't even think of a golf competition as a "game", although that's usually the term people give to their own individual skill level ("My golf game has improved ever since I stopped watching GSN.")  People tend to naturally use some word other than game (meet, event, race, competition, match) to describe events like that.

Naturally, there would be individual exceptions.  A boxing "match", for example, is judged, but the two competitors definitely have an influence on each other's performance and the match can be won on something other than a judgment. And again, we're all agreed that this is preopostrously narrow hair splitting. Still, it's an interesting distinction that's a little more clear-cut than you seem willing to admit to.