The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Argo on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
-
I know that sometimes game rules change are better for the contestant and are introduced as much to make the game easier etc. However, what happens when rules are changed to make the game harder, or to less benefit the contestant. Do they try to hide the fact or do they just joke and say that they were having too many winners, so they changed the rules, etc. etc, or do they say anything on air at all and let the viewer try to figure out the change.
A few random examples, 3 Strikes (TPIR) going from 3 strikes in the bag to 1 strike, then back to 3, Concentration (Narz Version) where matching the wild cards won instant $500 early in the run while later in the run was only $250 (although more wild cards on the board), shows allowing champions and then not, or how long champions would be able to stay changed.
Any other rule changes like this that people know about?
-
"Scrabble". Mosquitos. /thread.
-
Three linen shirts, one wool shirt, a couple pairs of slacks, and a comforter.
-
This was actually discussed a little on Game Show Garbage (and if you don't visit that site semi-regularly...why not?) after the induction of the $400-to-win format of Family Feud. Here's the thread:
http://gameshowgarbage.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gsg&action=display&thread=36
-
(and if you don't visit that site semi-regularly...why not?)
It didn't take me very long at all to find several good reasons. At least, for me personally. Other's mileage may and probably should vary.
-
Phone a Friend.
This was actually discussed a little on Game Show Garbage (and if you don't visit that site semi-regularly...why not?) after the induction of the $400-to-win format of Family Feud. Here's the thread:
Because I'm really not a fan of the proprietor nor his output. He's as bad as Tiller is in terms of the quality of his output, just for different reasons. (And actually, if you like watching seven questions per show, $400 is the best thing that happened to it.)
-
"Since you played the head-to-head with Richard Dawson last time, you have to pick somebody else. . ."
The Star Wheel didn't bother me as much, simply because it added a chance to double the stakes in exchange for not picking Richard all the time.
-
"Since you played the head-to-head with Richard Dawson last time, you have to pick somebody else. . ."
The Star Wheel didn't bother me as much, simply because it added a chance to double the stakes in exchange for not picking Richard all the time.
Me neither, then again, by the time I was aware of my surroundings, the Star Wheel was a fixture on MG. So it was kind of nostalgic for me.
I named mine already in the GSG thread (and we'll have to agree to disagree on liking that site...), basically, the toning down of certain celebrity versions of shows. For the opposite of the 400 dollar/point rule, would Bullseye in Feud count? Cause it made for less of the traditional gameplay.
How about bonus game changes? The last season of Whoopi HS definitely, and adding the Big Numbers to Las Vegas Gambit, not cause it was BAD, but it seemed out of place compared to the rest of the show. (Anyone know why they changed the end game? Was it H-Q's way of keeping High Rollers alive? Less budget from not giving away multiple prizes?)
-
I named mine already in the GSG thread (and we'll have to agree to disagree on liking that site...)
wait a minute. At the very least, I told you what I didn't like. What's good about it? I'll certainly quibble with the quality of the editorial content, Rob's delivery and the camerawork. Plus the "awards" named for stupid in-jokes.
So where's the good?
-
I named mine already in the GSG thread (and we'll have to agree to disagree on liking that site...)
wait a minute. At the very least, I told you what I didn't like. What's good about it? I'll certainly quibble with the quality of the editorial content, Rob's delivery and the camerawork. Plus the "awards" named for stupid in-jokes.
So where's the good?
Well I was a Wrestlecrap fan, so I guess I kind of appreciate some of Rob's content and style. (example: the Patrick Wayne Awards = the (Gobbledy-)Gooker Awards at WC) I just like the basic concept of roasting bad game shows, I guess. (If you want a criticism from me, you don't see many of the Usual Suspects get their just due on the site...)
My comment above was just concurring that people's mileage on the site may vary. And that's OK.
So, how about those bad rule changes?
-
Shenanigans second season: stopping the player's progress to play Operation and Where's Willy
Any game that has to switch to an all-celebrities format or shoehorns celebrities into the format (I'm looking at you Whew)
-
I think this is getting away from the idea of a rule or format change from a fluke incident setting a precedent. A lot of examples given are just rule changes...an all-celeb format is usually nothing more than a last-ditch effort to boost the ratings (using the most recent example given).
It's not quite a rule/format change, but wasn't the Press Your Luck board pattern changed dramatically following Larsongate? Same reason Whammy's pattern was randomized?
I also seem to remember reading about a rule change in Win, Lose, or Draw's bonus round during the Robb Weller era. From what I remember reading, the original rule was to start out with the first word worth say, $100, then doubling from there. Apparently, one early contestant went on a tear and racked up about $25,000+, prompting the producers to make it 7 in whatever time period for $5,000.
This was prolly posted in the ATGS era, so I'm going off a 10-year-old memory here. Forgive me if it's nothing more than just urban legend.
-
There were several posts on ATGS about NBC using a bonus in which you doubled from $100 to an infinite mark, unless you passed. However, I've never seen video of it, and it's not even cited on the Wiki page. The Weller bonus was always the $5,000 round. You got $50 for the first word, doubling it for the next five, and augmenting to 5k on the seventh correct answer.
-Jason
-
There were several posts on ATGS about NBC using a bonus in which you doubled from $100 to an infinite mark, unless you passed.
At which point the bank would reset to zero. Was there ever the case that someone got to $800 or $1600 with not all that much time left and just kinda said "Huh, I guess that'll do," instead of passing?
-
Wow a lot of worse rule changes. Thanks for the feedback. I was also wondering how have the show or hosts advertised the new rules? I understand them promoting the heck out of rule changes that can be benefital to the contestant(s), but when changing the rules the other way, how do they do advertise them. Obviously i guess the contestants are briefed backstage of any changes, but viewers at home are probably left wondering...
Mark
-
Back when you could actually read the credits, the boilerplate frequently included a sentence close to, "All contestants are selected in advance and advised of the rules of the game." I imagine that the latter is true on almost all shows.
\I say "almost" because some shows like Truth or Consequences and Double Dare depend on unpredictability.
-
Back when you could actually read the credits, the boilerplate frequently included a sentence close to, "All contestants are selected in advance and advised of the rules of the game." I imagine that the latter is true on almost all shows.
ISTR one of the behind-the-scenes specials back during Wheel's ratings juggernaut days showed a physical rulebook that was given to each contestant. Don't know if anyone bothers with that sort of expense any more.
\I say "almost" because some shows like Truth or Consequences and Double Dare depend on unpredictability.
I've always assumed that it was CYA wording against viewers (or unhappy contestants) complaining that it wasn't fair that some rule was invoked without being explained on the air. And I've always assumed that the lack of ability to do the same without giving the surprise away is why Double Dare walked through every stunt other than the cold open on the air, Drew Carey still explains the one-bids and showcase showdown on a daily basis, and Alex Trebek occasionally explains the specific type of response they expect in a category with a punny name.
-
I have heard some folks (not me) argue that the rule change in J! preventing contestants from buzzing in before Alex finished reading the question was actually for the worse. Apparently part of the "jeopardy" in the original version (and first season of the current one) was being first to the buzzer on a question, taking a risk that you may not know it.
Anyone have any thoughts? I personally wouldn't find an episode of nothing but buzzer battles, wrong answers, and low scores very entertaining, but then I haven't seen very much of the Fleming versions.
-
I also seem to remember reading about a rule change in Win, Lose, or Draw's bonus round during the Robb Weller era. From what I remember reading, the original rule was to start out with the first word worth say, $100, then doubling from there. Apparently, one early contestant went on a tear and racked up about $25,000+, prompting the producers to make it 7 in whatever time period for $5,000.
This was prolly posted in the ATGS era, so I'm going off a 10-year-old memory here. Forgive me if it's nothing more than just urban legend.
I'm pretty sure I'd seen the episode when it was originally run so I don't think it was just an urban legend. Recall thinking how insane the money she?'d won was...didn't think that was what the show intended.
-
I have heard some folks (not me) argue that the rule change in J! preventing contestants from buzzing in before Alex finished reading the question was actually for the worse. Apparently part of the "jeopardy" in the original version (and first season of the current one) was being first to the buzzer on a question, taking a risk that you may not know it.
Anyone have any thoughts? I personally wouldn't find an episode of nothing but buzzer battles, wrong answers, and low scores very entertaining, but then I haven't seen very much of the Fleming versions.
IMO the material was a bit harder in the Fleming era, making it more of a risk. Trebek (even early on) not so much.
-
I have heard some folks (not me) argue that the rule change in J! preventing contestants from buzzing in before Alex finished reading the question was actually for the worse. Apparently part of the "jeopardy" in the original version (and first season of the current one) was being first to the buzzer on a question, taking a risk that you may not know it.
Anyone have any thoughts? I personally wouldn't find an episode of nothing but buzzer battles, wrong answers, and low scores very entertaining, but then I haven't seen very much of the Fleming versions.
Argo's original question was for changes that made the game harder. This change didn't make it more or less difficult; it merely shifted the difficulty.
I like the game with the rule change, and I liked Blockbusters' way of reading the clue w/o text. I'm not a fan of letting them ring in AND giving them the clue. It rewards speed-reading instead of knowledge or risk-taking.
-
Wow a lot of worse rule changes. Thanks for the feedback. I was also wondering how have the show or hosts advertised the new rules? I understand them promoting the heck out of rule changes that can be benefital to the contestant(s), but when changing the rules the other way, how do they do advertise them. Obviously i guess the contestants are briefed backstage of any changes, but viewers at home are probably left wondering...
Mark
This was how Millionaire addressed the removal of PaF before eventually going to the shuffle format a season later IIRC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLaxWC1EKHM
-
Wow a lot of worse rule changes. Thanks for the feedback. I was also wondering how have the show or hosts advertised the new rules? I understand them promoting the heck out of rule changes that can be benefital to the contestant(s), but when changing the rules the other way, how do they do advertise them. Obviously i guess the contestants are briefed backstage of any changes, but viewers at home are probably left wondering...
Mark
This was how Millionaire addressed the removal of PaF before eventually going to the shuffle format a season later IIRC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLaxWC1EKHM
That was the best way to explain it, I suppose, but it struck me as awkward when they made the change mid season. It wasn't like it happened right after a contest had used the PAF on a million dollar question (which I recall happening once on the primetime version). It was midseason during a time when contestants were already struggling to make it to the top tier. They had every right to make the change, but considering how tough the game was as is, it just seemed a bit evil.
-
That was the best way to explain it, I suppose, but it struck me as awkward when they made the change mid season. It wasn't like it happened right after a contest had used the PAF on a million dollar question (which I recall happening once on the primetime version). It was midseason during a time when contestants were already struggling to make it to the top tier. They had every right to make the change, but considering how tough the game was as is, it just seemed a bit evil.
It was perhaps a change that needed to be made a lot sooner, even though the Googling method was rarely effective, especially when the contestant tried to parse the question FOR the PaF. As a matter of fact, the British show's official rules used to (and still might) have a rule saying any contestant with a googler for a PaF may be disqualified.
-
Chalk me up as another who didn't like Bullseye on Combs Feud. Part of it is because I like seeing all the answers to a Feud question, not just #1; part of it is because it often led to fairly small Fast Money banks unless one family swept. (And part of it was because they chyroned it instead of using the board.)
I thought WWTBaM switching to the clock was a bad idea, in part because they started the clock when Meredith read the question. One contestant actually kept interrupting her mid-question to just to get as much time as possible ("Which fast food place serves the Tendercrisp? A.) McDonald's, B.) Burger King, C.) Har—" "A.) Burger King, final answer!"). And there was a primetime episode where Regis got the giggles, leaving the poor contestant with a whopping 2 seconds to give an answer — on the $100 question!
Finally, I felt timing the questions just made it too structured. Part of why I liked original-recipe WWTBaM so much was seeing the host-contestant interaction (moreso with Reege than Meredith), and so much of that is reduced when you only have a couple minutes banked up per question. (Not that I'm saying you should pull a Kati Knudsen and take an hour-plus mulling over one question.)
-
As a matter of fact, the British show's official rules used to (and still might) have a rule saying any contestant with a googler for a PaF may be disqualified.
How do you police that now when your phone may double as a Google? Landlines only? And how do you police that, too?
-
Policing the landline-only policy should be fairly easy. If I look up a number, the first piece of information it gives me is whether it's a landline or cell phone.
-
Actually in the last set of episodes, contestants' Phone-a-Friends were sequestered backstage.
-
Actually in the last set of episodes, contestants' Phone-a-Friends were sequestered backstage.
That's because those episodes were live.
-
Phone a Friend.
This was actually discussed a little on Game Show Garbage (and if you don't visit that site semi-regularly...why not?) after the induction of the $400-to-win format of Family Feud. Here's the thread:
Because I'm really not a fan of the proprietor nor his output. He's as bad as Tiller is in terms of the quality of his output, just for different reasons. (And actually, if you like watching seven questions per show, $400 is the best thing that happened to it.)
That poor soul who has to host that site on his web server isn't that bad I don't think.... :-)
-
Actually in the last set of episodes, contestants' Phone-a-Friends were sequestered backstage.
That's because those episodes were live.
What episodes of 'Millionaire' were live?
-
My votes...
\ "Password Plus": When opposites were outlawed for clues. Yes, it had to make for creative clue-giving -- but you had to scratch your head when the clue "winters" got the dreaded illegal clue sound for the password "Somers" (as in the last name of "Three's Company" actress Suzanne). Thank goodness the opposites were allowed when SP started.
\ "Play The Percentages": When they moved the progressive jackpot element from the bonus game to the main game (Adam Nedeff noted on Game Show Utopia a malfunction on a digital readout in the huge percentage sign, that rose from the stage ahead of the bonus round, resulted in this rule change). Winning $36,000 in the main game is exciting -- but then playing for a piddly $2500 in the bonus game? Where's the fun in that? If you followed PT% throughout its original run or reruns (I followed the latter), you know that was only the beginning of a series of rule changes -- with a complete overhaul about midway through the run. I'll just let GSU take it from here. (http://"http://www.game-show-utopia.net/geoff/percentages/playthepercentages.htm")
\ "Tic Tac Dough": The (thankfully short-lived) rule which forced the champion to bank exactly $1000 or find TIC and TAC to win the prizes. Going over $1000 was as much of a loss as finding the dragon at any time.
-
What episodes of 'Millionaire' were live?
Since the UK version went back to doing special weeks instead of series, they have been live.
-
How do you get this far into a thread of "game show changes for the worse" without mentioning JackPot! switching from riddles to straight questions at the end of its NBC run?
(IMO, getting rid of the target number at the same time was almost as bad.)
While I'm at it:
1980s Dream House changing from three-choice questions to two.
Celebrity Sweepstakes getting rid of contestants having to write down answers - while it did get rid of the possibility of two celebrities giving the same wrong answer, it also prevented questions from being scratched.
1970s Sale of the Century switching to a two-couples format.
Getting rid of the "moneyball", and then getting rid of the prize for hitting all seven bumpers, on The Magnificent Marble Machine - it made the whole point of playing the machine anti-climactic.
Password modifying its all-star format to use regular players; they should have just gone back to the original format.
Speaking of adding celebrities to a show, sometimes it works (I think Monty Hall Beat the Clock was better with celebs), and sometimes it's a headscratcher (All-Star Baffle, where what the celebrities did really meant nothing as each pair was playing for a studio audience member who then played the end game).