The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Casey on December 21, 2003, 05:54:16 PM
-
I'm a child of the 80's, so I grew up watching Combs' Feud, and it's the version I remember best. After having GSN for a while though and watching Dawson's Feud, there are a couple of things about the Combs' Feud I just don't like.
1) On the Combs' version, while a family is playing, you often see the opposing team heckling the team that is playing. While they may have been encouraged to do that by the contestant coordinators, I don't like it. It makes the show seem more mean spirited than it is and it makes the show too "loud" for my taste.
2) Don't like the play or pass rule being eliminated. Same as on Super Password, it takes away a strategic option.
I find now that I can't really stand watching Combs' Feud anymore. The Dawson version just seemed friendlier (up until the 400 point rule when there was no time left in the 1/2 hour except to get through 6 or 7 questions).
-
[quote name=\'isucgv\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 05:54 PM\'] 1) On the Combs' version, while a family is playing, you often see the opposing team heckling the team that is playing. While they may have been encouraged to do that by the contestant coordinators, I don't like it. It makes the show seem more mean spirited than it is and it makes the show too "loud" for my taste.
2) Don't like the play or pass rule being eliminated. Same as on Super Password, it takes away a strategic option.
[/quote]
I agree and disagree with you...:)
1) About heckling, I agree with you there...With the crossing of arms to make an "X" for a strike, and stuff, yeah....That's where Dawson's version was a bit better..
2) The play-or-pass option, I liked in Ray's version....I rarely saw a team "pass" on Dawson's version..I would imagine that's why the rule was omittted.
Another thing I like that you didn't mention, is when the other family tries to steal, Ray would ask each one of them for a quick answer and then ask the head of the family for an answer. This, IMHO, was better than the whole family shouting answers at the same time and the buzzer sounding in quick succession for an answer from the head of the family.
-
[quote name=\'isucgv\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 05:54 PM\'] I'm a child of the 80's, so I grew up watching Combs' Feud, and it's the version I remember best. After having GSN for a while though and watching Dawson's Feud, there are a couple of things about the Combs' Feud I just don't like.
1) On the Combs' version, while a family is playing, you often see the opposing team heckling the team that is playing. While they may have been encouraged to do that by the contestant coordinators, I don't like it. It makes the show seem more mean spirited than it is and it makes the show too "loud" for my taste.
2) Don't like the play or pass rule being eliminated. Same as on Super Password, it takes away a strategic option.
I find now that I can't really stand watching Combs' Feud anymore. The Dawson version just seemed friendlier (up until the 400 point rule when there was no time left in the 1/2 hour except to get through 6 or 7 questions). [/quote]
I'm pretty indifferent about the heckling, but I definitely understand where you're coming from.
One thing Combs used to do that I liked: he'd reveal the remaining Fast Money answers if a team got their 200 early.
-
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
Omitting play/pass was good and I kinda like the one-answer-at-a-time format. The only problem is you get no real influence on the captain in the quiet huddle.
Oh, back to play/pass. Just think about it: is there any advantage to passing? 7 answers, you feel it's difficult. So why not take the most obvious answers, get three strikes, and have the other team struggle for one of the remaining answers? If somebody remembers/knows/figures out a good time to pass, I'd like to know. My mind's stuck.
As for the 400 point rule, I kinda liked it. It came across as a neat game. It got a lot of questions in, which I like, but then again it has the same problem as the Louie format. The last questions decide the entire game. I do play with it when my friends and I use the Feud presentation software, and so far after two games, one was actually seesaw with the earlier rounds having some effect on the rest.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 06:57 PM\'] Oh, back to play/pass. Just think about it: is there any advantage to passing? 7 answers, you feel it's difficult. So why not take the most obvious answers, get three strikes, and have the other team struggle for one of the remaining answers? If somebody remembers/knows/figures out a good time to pass, I'd like to know. My mind's stuck.
[/quote]
I remember a particularly successful family on the Dawson version of the show would pass anytime there were more than 5 answers on the board, because they had a knack for plucking off one of the obscure answers the other team couldn't get and stealing.
At the same time, in hockey, back in the day, a player serving a minor 2:00 penalty stayed in the penalty box (and therefore his team played a man down) until the penalty expired. Well, the Montreal Canadiens got SO GOOD at scoring on the power play that they could reel off multiple goals in a 2:00 period. The league changed the rules so that the player with the least time remaining in their minor penalty is released from the box when a goal is scored against them.
My point? My point is that maybe the two rules were altered for similar reasons: hockey should not be a game of power plays, and Feud should not be a game of stealing.
-
My point? My point is that maybe the two rules were altered for similar reasons: hockey should not be a game of power plays, and Feud should not be a game of stealing.
It does take an incident like that to alter a game. Well said.
Just an aside because I seem to be putting these in all my posts lately: in playing "Feud" both with the board game and now its questions on Todd's software, my friends pass A LOT. I almost wanna come out and say why they shouldn't, but they're realizing it. Last game when one team stole a whopping $45 and new the rest of the answers, they decided to play more. The opponents also realized that they should knock off the easy answers first. Now if each team just combined the two theories... :)
-Jason
-
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
Indeed. And agreed. I can imagine it'd be difficult to focus on giving a good answer with the other side shouting, "Strike! Strike!". Goodson was still around
at the time. I'm surprised he allowed that crap. If that had gone on with Richard
at the helm, I could see him saying, "Cut that out. What the hell are you doing?".
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 10:36 PM\']
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
Indeed. And agreed. I can imagine it'd be difficult to focus on giving a good answer with the other side shouting, "Strike! Strike!". Goodson was still around
at the time. I'm surprised he allowed that crap. If that had gone on with Richard
at the helm, I could see him saying, "Cut that out. What the hell are you doing?". [/quote]
Actually, I could see Richard Dawson doing that also. :) It doesn't seem like something Richard would have liked.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 10:36 PM\']
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
Indeed. And agreed. I can imagine it'd be difficult to focus on giving a good answer with the other side shouting, "Strike! Strike!". Goodson was still around
at the time. I'm surprised he allowed that crap. [/quote]
That being said, I remember one early Tournament of Champs c. 1989 or 90, where the head of the opposing team yelled out, "That's right! One more red X!" and crossed his arms to make an X, so I'm wondering if Goodson had much to say then.
-
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
I was wondering if I was the only one that thought so...
Also, what is the deal with the signs with the red strike on them that the contestants hold up? It seems to me like they serve no purpose. No one needs to be constantly reminded of the number of strikes a family has and certainly a player who has just gotten a strike doesn't need to be reminded. So what was the thought behind the strike signs?
-
I'm sure viewers wen't aware of how many strikes they had, so, the strike signs kept tally. And we don't know who got a strike, in the event that person was asked to give an answer other than the one that got the team the strike.
I liked those. I would've kept them, for the 1994 Dawson version as well as for the Anderson and Karn versions.
Now, back on topic. I remembered the opponents crossing their arms like an X. I don't know if that happened on the CBS version, but it did happen on the syndie version. I assume that the opponents think that the in-control team can't sweep the board!
-
I also thought that some of the heckling was obnoxious, unfair, and idiotic. How can the show function when some of that crap was going on?
Though the Combs' version had a quicker pace, that was unacceptable and a reason why I enjoy the Dawson version a bit more.
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 12:29 AM\'] I'm sure viewers wen't aware of how many strikes they had, so, the strike signs kept tally. And we don't know who got a strike, in the event that person was asked to give an answer other than the one that got the team the strike.
I liked those. I would've kept them, for the 1994 Dawson version as well as for the Anderson and Karn versions.
Now, back on topic. I remembered the opponents crossing their arms like an X. I don't know if that happened on the CBS version, but it did happen on the syndie version. I assume that the opponents think that the in-control team can't sweep the board! [/quote]
The "strike" signs looked like they were made 5 minutes before air--rather chitzny. I didn't see the purpose behind them.
I would have to agree with the heckling--in watching reruns on GSN; it comes off as poor sportsmanship. I don't recall this happening 'til the later part of the run, though.
-
When Dawson returned in 94, some of the "annoyances" of Ray's version were eliminated...
1-The team trying to steal the bank once again shouted out answers until the buzzer sounded.
2- No Bullseye, but rather a 3 question "bankroll" game with the same 2 players playing all 3 questions. Dawson didn't want Bullseye at all, but this was a good compromise.
3- No more "heckling" from what I could tell, or opponents making "strike" gestures with their arms.
4- Dawson was given enough time to give a short monologue and greet each family member, just as he did in the early days of Feud.
-
I also think the heckling was minimal initially but increased over the years to where it sometimes seemed out of control. I recall even the priests and friars were heckling each other during those theme weeks. This is one of the few things I dislike about Combs Feud. (Bullseye was a bit silly, but I preferred it to the 400-point goal on latter-day Dawson Feud.)
As for huddling up then yelling answers to steal (Dawson's) vs. the host asking each person for a possible steal (Combs'), 100 Mexicanos Dijeron seems to have incorporated both, with the family huddling AND host Marco Antonio Rejil quickly walking down the row asking for individual steal options. There's also some occasional heckling on that show, but its more subdued, like the early Combs era.
-
Something about the '88 Feud I've noticed is Ray lacking a little sincerity during the intros in the latter part of the show's run. Maybe it's just me, but he doesn't seem to mean it when he says to the canned audience, "thank you very much." Despite this, I think he still did a rather good job as host.
The opposing families heckling at each other is just crude. I think this was the start of an era where talk shows had started gaining popularity because of loud and disruptive guests. It's the same kind of childish crap I hate about reality TV these days. I just ignore it. :-)
And for the record, although the Feud software's default is 300, I'm a fan of the 400-point rule!
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 09:56 AM\'] Something about the '88 Feud I've noticed is Ray lacking a little sincerity during the intros in the latter part of the show's run. Maybe it's just me, but he doesn't seem to mean it when he says to the canned audience, "thank you very much." Despite this, I think he still did a rather good job as host.
The opposing families heckling at each other is just crude. I think this was the start of an era where talk shows had started gaining popularity because of loud and disruptive guests. It's the same kind of childish crap I hate about reality TV these days. I just ignore it. :-)
And for the record, although the Feud software's default is 300, I'm a fan of the 400-point rule! [/quote]
Canned?? I thought Feud taped in CBS33? I know taping there didn't mean they had to have an audience, but still, I'm sure they had an audience for the whole run.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 07:56 AM\'] And for the record, although the Feud software's default is 300, I'm a fan of the 400-point rule! [/quote]
For the sake of the game itself, I agree with you, it allows for more questions and chance to mount a comeback.
But for the sake of the SHOW, and fitting a 400-point game in 1/2 hour, it was horrible.
So I'd say if they're playing with your software and don't have to be off the air at any given time, sure, go crazy.
But at the same time, I'd rather have enough material to play two games to 300 than one game to 400. :)
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 07:57 PM\'] The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
Omitting play/pass was good and I kinda like the one-answer-at-a-time format. The only problem is you get no real influence on the captain in the quiet huddle.
Oh, back to play/pass. Just think about it: is there any advantage to passing? 7 answers, you feel it's difficult. So why not take the most obvious answers, get three strikes, and have the other team struggle for one of the remaining answers? If somebody remembers/knows/figures out a good time to pass, I'd like to know. My mind's stuck.
As for the 400 point rule, I kinda liked it. It came across as a neat game. It got a lot of questions in, which I like, but then again it has the same problem as the Louie format. The last questions decide the entire game. I do play with it when my friends and I use the Feud presentation software, and so far after two games, one was actually seesaw with the earlier rounds having some effect on the rest.
-Jason [/quote]
I saw one incident where it might have been a good idea, even though it didn't pan out. It was a celebrity edition. The question was, "Name a female tennis player." The team that got control of the question included a female tennis player. (Tracy Austin, IIRC, but it's not important.) They passed. I don't know whether the player making the decision had this in mind, but it would seem logical: There were something like 7 or 8 answers on the survey, which means there was not much chance that the other team would come up with all of them. Logically, one would think that Tracy herself would know most of the people who made the list. As it truns out, she wasn't much help after all, but this illustrates a rare situation where it might be a good idea: 7+ answers, and a member of your team knows a lot of whatever they're asking for. In particular, this would be a good idea if you personally know a lot of them and there are only a few answers, because your teammates could strike out before you have an opportunity to give another answer.
What I didn't like in the Challenge era, and today as well, is the fact that they played for points instead of money. If you didn't win at Fast Money, or if your jackpot was less than $5,000 daytime/$10,000 nighttime, you ended up with less money than if you had appeared in an earlier version of the show. (Was this change made at the same time? I hadn't watched in a while at the time.)
-
I liked the heckling when i grew up watching it as a kid, but now I agree it got trashy, I think it was allowed because well look at the time, it was the greed is good dion sanders/LT stick your tounge out era. I liked no play pass rule, unless you have something like the dreaded 4 round fremantle feud format, it is not needed. As for individual answers vs huddles, I agree with the 100 mexicanos dejeron fan, I think a mix of both shows both continutiy yet a better chance for the families to communicate their steals. I just cant watch 100 mexicanos dejeron anymore since they adopted the one strike 4th round (GRRRRRRR).
And yes bullseye sucked.
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 12:19 PM\'] [quote name=\'Particleman\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 09:56 AM\'] Something about the '88 Feud I've noticed is Ray lacking a little sincerity during the intros in the latter part of the show's run. Maybe it's just me, but he doesn't seem to mean it when he says to the canned audience, "thank you very much." Despite this, I think he still did a rather good job as host.
The opposing families heckling at each other is just crude. I think this was the start of an era where talk shows had started gaining popularity because of loud and disruptive guests. It's the same kind of childish crap I hate about reality TV these days. I just ignore it. :-)
And for the record, although the Feud software's default is 300, I'm a fan of the 400-point rule! [/quote]
Canned?? I thought Feud taped in CBS33? I know taping there didn't mean they had to have an audience, but still, I'm sure they had an audience for the whole run. [/quote]
Sorry, what I meant by "canned" was the pre-recorded clapping and cheering they play. Take a close listen. The pre-recorded track starts with clapping, a few seconds later a long cheer, then a few more seconds, then a loop back to the beginning.
Come to think of it, the canned audience sounds are another thing I don't like about the '88 Feud. There's still plenty I DO like, just not these particular things.
-
The question was, "Name a female tennis player." The team that got control of the question included a female tennis player. (Tracy Austin, IIRC, but it's not important.) They passed. I don't know whether the player making the decision had this in mind, but it would seem logical: There were something like 7 or 8 answers on the survey, which means there was not much chance that the other team would come up with all of them.
Problem de jour is she may know female tennis players. But not the most popular. And most of those would be picked off by the first team.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 12:19 PM\'] Canned?? I thought Feud taped in CBS33? I know taping there didn't mean they had to have an audience, but still, I'm sure they had an audience for the whole run. [/quote]
They still had an audience, but they still used canned cheers. During intros and coming back from commercials, you could always hear very sweetened cheers, esp. when Gene Wood announced Ray's name.
-
The "strike" signs looked like they were made 5 minutes before air--rather chitzny. I didn't see the purpose behind them.
I'm surprised so many people have mentioned these things. They were only used for a few days' worth of shows, and in the first one Ray Combs says they're because the lights that normally tell him how many strikes aren't working. And if that's true, they probably *were* made five minutes before air. Not that they couldn't have used some off-screen way instead, but the spatulas were a fun change. Just not something good enough to keep.
Then again, I remember the families' heckling each other as an occasional thing and not a regular feature of the show too. Perhaps I should dig up some tapes.
-
I also thought that some of the heckling was obnoxious, unfair, and idiotic. How can the show function when some of that crap was going on?
Add me to the growing list of those Feud fans who object to the 'heckling.' No wonder Ray grew disillusioned during the last couple of years he was on; I'd be too if I had to put up with that kind of behavior among the families. If I were that show's contestant coordinator, I would have enforced a NO HECKLING YOUR OPPONENTS rule. When I was on Name That Tune, I said to my opponent, 'We're in this together!' Because I felt it was wrong to be 'a bad sport.' 'Hecking your opponent' could only work on a show like Change of Heart, (unless the couple decided to 'stay together') not one like FF!
Cordially,
Tammy Warner--the 'Rita Hayes of the Big Board!'
-
The one thing that I don't like about Combs Feud is the way that Ray says "Zero" during Fast Money; he always says it as "Ze-ROOO!".
-
[quote name=\'Winkfan\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 02:53 PM\'] When I was on Name That Tune, I said to my opponent, 'We're in this together!' Because I felt it was wrong to be 'a bad sport.' [/quote]
Very noble, but at the same time, I'm going on a game show to win boatloads 'o' cash and prizes as much as I am for the experience and fun of it all. That person behind the other podium is standing between me and a whole lot of money, and while I wouldn't wish death on them, I certainly wouldn't complain about a distraction like an eyelash under the contact lens or a bout of painful rectal itch if I were to whip up a little impromptu voodoo. :)
-
'Hecking your opponent' could only work on a show like Change of Heart, (unless the couple decided to 'stay together') not one like FF!
On NTT, I understand. But Feud is more of a Battling against each other show, hence the name Family Feud :-)
And you must remember, on all incarnations of Family Feud, they show the two families celebrating a win (or just having fun) at the end of the show. It's really all in good fun!
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 06:41 PM\']
And you must remember, on all incarnations of Family Feud, they show the two families celebrating a win (or just having fun) at the end of the show. It's really all in good fun! [/quote]
THey didn't have both families onstage at the end of most Dawson Feud episodes, just the champions. This tradition was started at some point in Combs run, and carries over to the Anderson/Karn version. Can't recall whether 1994-95 Feud had the "both families onstage at the end" tradition.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 02:28 PM\']
What I didn't like in the Challenge era, and today as well, is the fact that they played for points instead of money. If you didn't win at Fast Money, or if your jackpot was less than $5,000 daytime/$10,000 nighttime, you ended up with less money than if you had appeared in an earlier version of the show. (Was this change made at the same time? I hadn't watched in a while at the time.) [/quote]
They stopping awarding dollars in the maingame at the time the Bullseye round was introduced on both the CBS and syndicated Combs runs.
-
In addition, it turns out that, according to Travis's site, the "add the stolen answer's value to the bank" rule came with the Combs' version, up until now.
The current season's version is the classic 300-point goal rule, without the "add the stolen answer's value to the bank" rule.
That's what I didn't like about that change. They should go ahead and award the value of the stolen answer to the bank, because, in that way, your team could still top 300 and win the game.
-
Wow, I seem to be the only person on here that seems to like the "heckling" of the opoonents on Combs' "Feud". I personally didn't think Combs was that great of the host, he seemed more like your stereotypical, run-of-the-mill type host to me. The "heckling" and the overly-hyper contestants were the only things that made it fun to watch for me. Oh yeah, the game was cool, too. :-)
-
They should go ahead and award the value of the stolen answer to the bank, because, in that way, your team could still top 300 and win the game.
I always hated that rule because it goes against the original idea of the game. One team builds a bank until they clear the board or get three strikes. The opposing team can then steal their work. If they happen to get another, so what, it's still worth the $x team one built up.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'pyl85\' date=\'Dec 21 2003, 11:53 PM\']
The heckling came across as really immature. To me, it just showed the teams had poor sportsmanship.
I was wondering if I was the only one that thought so...
Also, what is the deal with the signs with the red strike on them that the contestants hold up? It seems to me like they serve no purpose. No one needs to be constantly reminded of the number of strikes a family has and certainly a player who has just gotten a strike doesn't need to be reminded. So what was the thought behind the strike signs? [/quote]
Yeah, I noticed those goofy signs this past weekend on the 5:30 run. That is tied for stupidest idea with the "dumb answer of the day" trophy awarded on the Louie version.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 22 2003, 02:36 PM\']
The question was, "Name a female tennis player." The team that got control of the question included a female tennis player. (Tracy Austin, IIRC, but it's not important.) They passed. I don't know whether the player making the decision had this in mind, but it would seem logical: There were something like 7 or 8 answers on the survey, which means there was not much chance that the other team would come up with all of them.
Problem de jour is she may know female tennis players. But not the most popular. And most of those would be picked off by the first team.
-Jason [/quote]
That's not the problem--that's the strategy. What I meant to say is that after the most popular ones were picked off, she would be in the best position to come up with the ones lower on the list.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 23 2003, 10:23 AM\'] That's not the problem--that's the strategy. What I meant to say is that after the most popular ones were picked off, she would be in the best position to come up with the ones lower on the list. [/quote]
Maybe. OR...maybe she would have _too much_ knowledge.
Consider: Top, say, seven answers are on the board. Other team plucks off Numbers 1 through 5, and then strikes out. Two answers, the "most obscure" two that still made the survey, are left. And here's Tracy, who played professionally, knows _hundreds_ of professional female tennis players, and is tasked with trying to come up with one of the two who fit in that slot, when she could prolly come up with twenty or more, each with an equal probability of being there.
Knowing the question is half of he Feud. Knowing how _other people would answer it_ is the other half.
-
I didn't have that much of a problem with heckling. Then again, I'm a big fan of MST3k, so I might not be the best person to judge heckling.
I had more of a problem with people saying "Good answer! Good answer!" to obviously bad answers. Then again, that's a problem with all Feuds, not just Ray's.
No, the problem I had with Combs' Feud was the (then) ubiquitous "Baby Rap" spot. Our local station must have played that thing a million times. It wasn't a bad promo, it was cute, but it got in my brain and made me forget things like my name and where I lived.
"Do the baby rap...AHHH AHHH...do the baby rap..."
Other than that, I liked Ray's Feud just fine.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 23 2003, 09:20 AM\']
They should go ahead and award the value of the stolen answer to the bank, because, in that way, your team could still top 300 and win the game.
I always hated that rule because it goes against the original idea of the game. One team builds a bank until they clear the board or get three strikes. The opposing team can then steal their work. If they happen to get another, so what, it's still worth the $x team one built up.
-Jason [/quote]
I disagree. The family that steals should still get credit for the steal, because they were the ones that gave the answer that gave them the bank.
So, in essence, they should still add the points of the Stolen Answer to the bank.