-
With "Balderdash" currently on TV, and shows such as "Taboo" and "Scrabble" airing on television..what other basic board game formats could be derivated to make a good game show?
I feel that Scattergories could be done, when done properly; in addition I think "Fact or Crap", "Scene It", and "Pop Smarts" could all be done successfully.
On the other hand, I don't think the $200,000 Candy Land would last very long.
-
And for that matter, the $75,000 Chutes & Ladders won't work either.
Seriously, I think Remember When might make a good transition from board game to TV series if done right. Also, Mad Gab is a good possibility. Simply figure out what each of those gibberish phrases are really saying Rather easy enough to format.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 02:23 AM\'] With "Balderdash" currently on TV, and shows such as "Taboo" and "Scrabble" airing on television..what other basic board game formats could be derivated to make a good game show?
[/quote]
25 Words or Less from Winning Moves, released in 1996. It has teams bidding on how few words they would need to get their teammates to guess five words, with a maximum bid of 25 words, hence the title. It's Password/Pyramid meets the Bid-a-Note round from NTT.
-
Well, let's dig into my vault and see what we have.....
Of the games in my collection that are NOT TV-based, I'd say the cream of the crop is Mad Gab. It's a game where some mumbo-jumbo is printed on a card that sounds like a phrase. For Example, "Hue Essay" would translate as "U.S.A."
-
[quote name=\'WhammyPower\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:47 AM\'] Well, let's dig into my vault and see what we have.....
Of the games in my collection that are NOT TV-based, I'd say the cream of the crop is Mad Gab. It's a game where some mumbo-jumbo is printed on a card that sounds like a phrase. For Example, "Hue Essay" would translate as "U.S.A." [/quote]
Been done.
"Fractured Phrases" back in the 60s.
-
There's a fairly entertaining dice game called "Sharpshooters" that I think could be adapted well. (The game is out of print, I believe.) And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I.
With the popularity of Blackjack and Poker shows, how long before someone tries "Celebrity Uno"?
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:20 AM\'] There's a fairly entertaining dice game called "Sharpshooters" that I think could be adapted well. (The game is out of print, I believe.) [/quote]
Sharp Shooters has been out of print for some time, at least 5 years.
I have a copy of that game. If done properly, Sharp Shooters could be a fun TV game, especially if the home viewer could play along in some way. The worst case scenario could result in something similar to Yahtzee, the TV show.
-
"Rack-O" with Brooke Burns.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:33 AM\'] "Rack-O" with Brooke Burns. [/quote]
We've Got Your NUmber played a bit like a shortened version of Rack-O, i.e. in that the players had to place four dice rolls from 2-12 in sequential order to win a round(the MB game Rack-O, which I believe predated the aforesaid 1975 pilot, had players being dealt 10 cards and had to rank 10 cards in their rack from high to low to win)
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:33 AM\'] "Rack-O" with Brooke Burns. [/quote]
That's a brilliant idea, Jimmy. Both the show and the host have plastic racks.
-
The "We've Got Your Number" concept was also echoed in the Rodney Dangerfield board game "No Respect", where players had to build columns of number chips drawn from a pool in a descending or ascending order. There are many that would be interesting - back in my stupid days, I sent a format to Tim Walsh for his game TriBond. It's one of my personal favorites. I hear at least one pilot has been made, maybe two. Sure would like to know what they looked like. Since TriBond has been acquired by Mattel and they're aggressively marketing their game division, who knows? I was told that even at one time, a pilot for an UNO game show was made. What if that had worked? What would be next - $25,000 Flinch? Super Mille Bourne?
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:47 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:33 AM\'] "Rack-O" with Brooke Burns. [/quote]
That's a brilliant idea, Jimmy. Both the show and the host have plastic racks. [/quote]
Thanks, Mike. Beats watching Jack Barry fer shur.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 03:36 AM\'] And for that matter, the $75,000 Chutes & Ladders won't work either. [/quote]
Dont laugh, they tried that you know!
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:20 AM\'] And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I.
[/quote]
Wimpout has that Press Your Luck feel to it that would indeed make a fine game show, but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it.
Celebrity Tichu Challenge would be the b0mb, too. :)
Paging Peter Sarrett.... :)
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:20 AM\'] With the popularity of Blackjack and Poker shows, how long before someone tries "Celebrity Uno"? [/quote]
I actually had an idea for an Uno game show awhile back, but it ended up just being way too complicated and boring, so I pitched it. In my experience, most card games (besides playing cards) don't translate into game shows too well.
Getting back on topic...if someone is willing to build the gigantic set that would be required, the Game of LIFE would be interesting.
--Sam
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:36 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:33 AM\'] "Rack-O" with Brooke Burns. [/quote]
We've Got Your NUmber played a bit like a shortened version of Rack-O, i.e. in that the players had to place four dice rolls from 2-12 in sequential order to win a round(the MB game Rack-O, which I believe predated the aforesaid 1975 pilot, had players being dealt 10 cards and had to rank 10 cards in their rack from high to low to win) [/quote]
Sorry, Zach, but I think that merits a
WHOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!
-
Mad Gab? Ass. Sharpshooters? Ass. The number one rule for a board game to translate is that the game can't suck wang. Both these do.
I would LOVE to see Wimpout/Fill or Bust/Farkle/Greed/10,000/Risk and Roll/you get my point done as a game show properly.
And the dice game that I think would lend itself perfectly to TV? Two words: Can't Stop. "Last Chance" or "son of Sharp Shooters" would be neat.
On the box game side, I think that Times to Remember or Teams of Enemies would also play well; they already feel like game shows.
(EDIT: Bah, Chris Lemon beat me to "Can't Stop." Well, I'd hope another game guy did, anyway. Finally, a topic on which *I* can wear the Horan Hat.)
-
[quote name=\'SamJ93\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:56 AM\'] Getting back on topic...if someone is willing to build the gigantic set that would be required, the Game of LIFE would be interesting.
[/quote]
A game I overlooked last night when typing this thread would be "Easy Money" by Milton Bradley.
Wouldn't you love to see a contestants reaction as a competitor took $75,000 away from them?
-
I know this made it to pilot stage, but Tri-Bond has some potential. Of course, whoever produces it should find a way to make it interesting. It seems like the concept could wear thin awfully quick.
I had an idea for a game based on "Taboo" long before the TNN version, but I think it could still work, but cut out the silly gameplay from the 2003 version.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:32 AM\'] Teams of Enemies would also play well; they already feel like game shows.
[/quote]
Teams of Enemies teeters dangerously close to your "suck" rule. The concept is an okay one, but there was absolutely zero thought put into the actual game they built around it. I was underwhemed the one time I played it, and I won.
(And don't call it the Horan Hat. That ego doesn't need to be fed any more than it already feeds itself.)
-
Sice TriBond came up again, would you please forgive me for this - I'd like to give a slight overview of my version for two reasons - one, to create a body of witnesses, and two, show how it can work well. My exact rules are in my files at home, so here's the key points from memory. This is what I sent the inventor, so this idea is out there.
The main play of the game is a 16-square game board, 4X4. On their turn, a player or team picks a numbered square. Like J!, a Tri-Bond clue set shows
(A Car - A Tree - An Elephant). Picking player/team gets first shot at what they have in common. If wrong or time runs out, opponent(s) can try. When a clue set is guessed correctly, a picture replaces the clue set in the square. That picture will work with two others elsewhere on the board to create another set of clues. For example, if that picture was Roy Rogers on his famous horse, and two other pictures somewhere on the board are an old-fashioned pickle barrel and a claw hammer - once the third of those three pictures is revealed on the board, the borders of the pictures light up, a signal sounds, and the MC then says, "For one point, what do trigger, barrel and hammer have in common." The player/team who got that third clue picture gets first guess. If wrong, opponent guesses. As players answer TriBond sets to reveal the pictures and guess the visual matches, the first player/team to get 3 picture clue points wins the game. The clue to making TriBond work on tv is visuals, like Concentration. There has to be deduction and anticipation for the home audience. Just doing three-clue readings will get deadly dull. By the way, the clue pictures are scattered through the board, not necessarily adjoining. And one or two pictures can be red herrings, as some pictures could be part of more than one set of three clues. Oh, the lessons we learn...
And before it's mentioned - the picture idea preceeded either the Diamond Version or 10th Anniversary with picture clue cards.
-
And the dice game that I think would lend itself perfectly to TV? Two words: Can't Stop. "Last Chance" or "son of Sharp Shooters" would be neat.
Amazing how I got both of those games several years ago. And I think both could make great shows (again......) if done right.
-
Here's another one that came into my head: I noticed that "Trump: The Game" from the 80's is now back in stores, no doubt due to The Donald's new-found television success. I haven't played the game, but anyone that has, do you think it could translate into a show at all?
--Sam
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:54 AM\'] [quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:20 AM\'] And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I.
[/quote]
Wimpout has that Press Your Luck feel to it that would indeed make a fine game show, but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it.
Celebrity Tichu Challenge would be the b0mb, too. :)
Paging Peter Sarrett.... :) [/quote]
but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it.
How about this format for "Can't Stop"?
Like Blockbusters, but when a player gets a question right, they can continue answering questions to claim multiple hexes (their opponent can't buzz in). If they get a question wrong, they lose all their accumulated squares (for that turn) and the other player gets control. If the player chooses to stop, they get to keep their hexes and their opponent gets control.
I'm thinking of a fast-paced format like Weakest-Link, with a question every 5-10 seconds.
To make sure the game doesn't straddle, if time is running out, the game shifts to a lightning round format where the host picks a hex and reads a question. A buzz-in correct answer gets the hex and a wrong answer gives the opponent the hex.
It might need a larger board than 5x5 to make the game last long enough. The questions should be easy enough to encourage players to gamble, but hard enough that someone can't win in only 2-3 turns.
-
[quote name=\'fsk\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:30 PM\'] How about this format for "Can't Stop"?
[/quote]
It's interesting, but where are the dice? :)
Perhaps each column has a category assigned to it, and a throw of the four dice (and subsequent pairing into two sets of two) decides which two columns you get to play in?
-
My ears are burning.
Two key elements of Can't Stop are the randomness of the dice, and the probability curve of the board. If you're looking to preserve the board game's flavor, you need to preserve these elements.
The simplest approach would be a Card Sharks model. Players compete on some sort of knowledge question, with the winner gaining control of the dice.
If time runs short, all in-progress markers are removed (only claimed columns stay) and the game switches to toss-up questions with a right answer earning a column.
The first player to reach the top of 3 columns wins the game.
For extra spice, each column awards a different prize for claiming it, if the claiming player wins the game. The prizes could be visible from the get-go, thus creating stronger incentive for players to attack certain columns, or they might be hidden until someone wins the column.
That's one approach, anyway.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:20 AM\'] And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I.
[/quote]
WOW.
I haven't thought about "Cosmic Wimpout" in over 10 years, since I spent Saturday nights playing RPG's at the local university. I was a geek then. Nearly 14 years later, I'm still a geek.
Except now, I'm proud of it. :)
-
Good stuff, Peter.
The pairing of the 4 dice is the fun twist in the game. It might have to be modified, just like Trivial Pursuit was. With the game board using the 7 column as both the middle and longest column, you have 5 rows on either side of the 7 (2-6, 8-12).
Now what if you assigned, maybe 4 categories in each game. They do not necessarily connect with any particular row...but like in Jeopardy, make the difficulty of the question match the odds of rolling a particular number. For example, the 2 and 12 column, the question difficulty would be like that of the $1000 row in Jeopardy. 3 and 11 column, $800, 4 and 10 column, $600, 5 and 9 column $400, 6 and 8 column, $200. Make the 7 maybe $50 or $100. I'm not suggesting cash values, just levels of question toughness. Champion goes first, rolls the 4 dice on his turn, pairs up two sets, say 5 and 12. Player starts with the longest column first, picks one of the 4 categories. For each question the player gets right, it's one space up the column. If the player blows it, the turn is over. If a player goes up a few spaces and decides to stop (freeze), the player can choose another category and goes up the shorter column. Same options. When that player's turn is done, the categories used are replaced by new ones, and the next player rolls the four dice. I'm debating as to whether the game should end with the 7 column being the last one a player should capture to go out. It would make it interesting in that if both players have captured 2 other columns - a player rolls the dice on their turn and can't pair any of them up to make a 7, play passes to the opponent. You could be real smart and answer a lot of questions, only to have luck be a major factor for a surprise win. There's still some variables to be determined. What if all questions in a category have the same level of difficulty - say like the Joker's Wild, where you just never know which question will be a bullet with your name on it? Maybe just make the end boxes super-tough? The Hit Man triple crown bonus game had this kind of feel. Only this time, dice, not choice, would determine your column. I agree with a lot of you that there is something here.
-
The problem with matching question difficulty to die probability is that the middle three columns become doubly attractive. First, because they're easier to roll and thus less likely to crap you out, and second because their questions are easier... and thus less likely to crap you out. I just don't think it works.
I think the questions have to go in a front game to control access to the board.
-
[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:30 PM\'] Good stuff, Peter.
The pairing of the 4 dice is the fun twist in the game. It might have to be modified, just like Trivial Pursuit was. With the game board using the 7 column as both the middle and longest column, you have 5 rows on either side of the 7 (2-6, 8-12).
Now what if you assigned, maybe 4 categories in each game. They do not necessarily connect with any particular row...but like in Jeopardy, make the difficulty of the question match the odds of rolling a particular number. For example, the 2 and 12 column, the question difficulty would be like that of the $1000 row in Jeopardy. 3 and 11 column, $800, 4 and 10 column, $600, 5 and 9 column $400, 6 and 8 column, $200. Make the 7 maybe $50 or $100. I'm not suggesting cash values, just levels of question toughness. Champion goes first, rolls the 4 dice on his turn, pairs up two sets, say 5 and 12. Player starts with the longest column first, picks one of the 4 categories. For each question the player gets right, it's one space up the column. If the player blows it, the turn is over. If a player goes up a few spaces and decides to stop (freeze), the player can choose another category and goes up the shorter column. Same options. When that player's turn is done, the categories used are replaced by new ones, and the next player rolls the four dice. I'm debating as to whether the game should end with the 7 column being the last one a player should capture to go out. It would make it interesting in that if both players have captured 2 other columns - a player rolls the dice on their turn and can't pair any of them up to make a 7, play passes to the opponent. You could be real smart and answer a lot of questions, only to have luck be a major factor for a surprise win. There's still some variables to be determined. What if all questions in a category have the same level of difficulty - say like the Joker's Wild, where you just never know which question will be a bullet with your name on it? Maybe just make the end boxes super-tough? The Hit Man triple crown bonus game had this kind of feel. Only this time, dice, not choice, would determine your column. I agree with a lot of you that there is something here. [/quote]
How about a $5,000 bonus if the contestant throws 4 of a kind (IE: 4-4-4-4)! However, the player would win that if the move is possible (just like the Insurance Marker on High Rollers).
-
It was a top-of-the-head idea, and after sleeping on it, the excessive difficulty based on rows adds unnecessary complication to the game. You're right, Peter. Same level questions works better. A "roll the dice to move up the columns" is a faster game than a q&a style for tv purposes (I think I'd still like a variation of the q&a version for a home board game), but I still wonder if a toss-up question for control takes away from the even chances to win style of the board game. One guy or gal hot on the buzzer, and the other player is screwed. What if a toss-up question determined who gets first control of the dice? Player A and player B compete. Host reads a toss-up. Player A rings first, is right. Player A rolls dice, plays as standard board game. Your Card Sharks model holds up well where if Player A decides to freeze after any successful roll, a new toss-up comes along. If a player decides to roll on and can't make a match on his 3 key numbers, the opponent takes over the dice. Maybe not necessarily for a full run - but a couple of bonus rolls to put a bit of heat on the other player. Answering toss-ups should be the key to getting as many rolls as you can, but you risk letting your opponent gain a little ground (and maybe even beat you) if you push yourself to one roll too many.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:54 AM\'] Wimpout has that Press Your Luck feel to it that would indeed make a fine game show, but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it. [/quote]
So've I!
One of these days...
-
[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 02:11 PM\'] Sice TriBond came up again, would you please forgive me for this - I'd like to give a slight overview of my version for two reasons - one, to create a body of witnesses, and two, show how it can work well. My exact rules are in my files at home, so here's the key points from memory. This is what I sent the inventor, so this idea is out there. [/quote]
I think that's a darned fine idea. I wonder if, since it's Tri-bond, it would make sense to make it a 3x3 board: 2 out of 3 picture sets wins the game, or something like that.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:24 PM\'] My ears are burning. [/quote]
Seek medical attention immediately!
Two key elements of Can't Stop are the randomness of the dice, and the probability curve of the board. If you're looking to preserve the board game's flavor, you need to preserve these elements.
Well-reasoned and insightful. Yes.
The simplest approach would be a Card Sharks model. Players compete on some sort of knowledge question, with the winner gaining control of the dice.
*snip*
For extra spice, each column awards a different prize for claiming it, if the claiming player wins the game. The prizes could be visible from the get-go, thus creating stronger incentive for players to attack certain columns, or they might be hidden until someone wins the column.
Another thing to consider is whether column length should be inversely proportional to roll-difficulty or to make them all the same length, with "harder" columns worth more. The former would seem to lead to a fairly long game; the latter might be faster-moving.
That's one approach, anyway.
I like it, but I don't know if it'd have a chance today. It's the Heatter-Quigley approach to adapting a game for TV, I'd call it. "Gambit" was simple and elegant. "High Rollers" was, too--but it was essentially the same game mechanic. Finding a unique way to earn the dice or control the board or whatever you'd call it would be would seem to be key to making "Can't Stop" work as a TV show. What got "Taboo" made was not just the box game but the smutty-comedy aspect (which is, yes, what made it fail, but it was a valid try). In a game-unfriendly TV climate, what would make "Can't Stop" attractive to a packager?
Alas, I only wish I knew.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 08:27 AM\'] Finding a unique way to earn the dice or control the board or whatever you'd call it would be would seem to be key to making "Can't Stop" work as a TV show. [/quote]
Right. I don't think Peter was suggesting a straight generic toss-up-trivia question for someone to buzz in on...something with a little more meat, like the Card Sharks style of a question about human nature, and then mixing in an aspect of the game (as CS does with the higher/lower option) to tie it together.
How would you do that with Can't Stop? No clue. I'd like to see something like that, but devised so that three players can get involved, since I picture Can't Stop as a three-player show. No idea how it would work, though. Prolly better that way.
-
Thanks for the kind words, Clay. We're both working off the "Tri" part of the game, which is where a 3-point win seemed logical. To use your idea, it could be possible that after a picture clue match is made, those pictures could be removed and the spaces renewed on the game board with new clue sets and pictures.
This has been a fun and challenging idea..the Can't Stop. The idea of how to make several rolls of 4 dice in a row - with a slight delay as players determine how they want to pair and play them (adding time to a potentially long game) - something viewers will sit and enjoy is a challenge. The question-roll-question-roll rhythm of High Rollers with any one roll ending a game quickly was mechanical, but okay. That's why I thought the substituting questions for dice rolls to move up the columns might be closer to classic game show than board game. Between all of us, somebody's bound to nail it..if it can be translated to tv at all. That's it for me...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 11:01 AM\'] Right. I don't think Peter was suggesting a straight generic toss-up-trivia question for someone to buzz in on...something with a little more meat, like the Card Sharks style of a question about human nature, and then mixing in an aspect of the game (as CS does with the higher/lower option) to tie it together.
[/quote]
How would you do that with Can't Stop? No clue.
Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be a question that has several correct answers. You score if you name them all correctly--but if you "stop" too soon, and the other side can get even one of the answers you missed, they win control. (E.g., "Name all the 20th-century Democratic US Presidents.") That sort of thing might take too long, but it would work if the gameboard used the short-columns idea I mentioned earlier.
I'd like to see something like that, but devised so that three players can get involved...
I've always thought you'd need four players--in teams of two--if only to have enough hands to handle the dice.
-
Adding another game to the mix, what about "Upwords"? Obviously it couldn't be a straight 3D "Scrabble"-on-TV, but the idea of changing one word into another is somehow intriguing.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 12:24 PM\'] Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be a question that has several correct answers. You score if you name them all correctly--but if you "stop" too soon, and the other side can get even one of the answers you missed, they win control. (E.g., "Name all the 20th-century Democratic US Presidents.") That sort of thing might take too long, but it would work if the gameboard used the short-columns idea I mentioned earlier. [/quote]
It's a very lovely thought, but you're right that it would take too long. You're essentially playing an entire round of Family Feud or Hot Potato (with objective answers) in order to get to a brief snippet of the namesake game.
(See also: Yahtzee)
-
I have given some thought to a game show based on 25 Words or Less and dismissed it as a bad idea. The limit on words and time leaves the players staring at each other in silence for a good chunk of the time. Not good television!
Outburst, OTOH, would make a rowdy version of Family Feud.
-
A game I overlooked last night when typing this thread would be "Easy Money" by Milton Bradley.
And they could use Billy Joel's 1983 song of the same name as its theme music. :-)
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Sep 26 2004, 06:35 PM\'] I have given some thought to a game show based on 25 Words or Less and dismissed it as a bad idea. The limit on words and time leaves the players staring at each other in silence for a good chunk of the time. Not good television!
Outburst, OTOH, would make a rowdy version of Family Feud. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. Skilled players don't stare at each other in silence.
This is not to say I've cracked the "25 Words"-adaptation problem; I don't have a terrific format for it either.
"Outburst" is very much related to "TalkAbout," which wasn't exactly rowdy, but your point there is taken.
-
Some more board games I'd like to see.
BATTLESHIP: Two teams (celebrity/contestant) takes turns calling off the ocean grid, tyring to find their opponent's ships. There are 6, instead of 5 ships. Sinking a ship pays off...
SMALL SUB: 1 hole (starts @ $50,000 & decreases $1,000 per miss down to the minimum of $10,000)
DESTROYER: 2 holes ($5,000)
CRUISER: 3 holes ($2,500)
SUBMARINE: Same as Cruiser
BATTLESHIP: 4 holes ($1,000)
CARRIER: 5 holes ($500)
B-4. YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!
CAREERS: Parker Brothers game with 8 career paths (one College), trying to acheive fame, fortune & happiness. The 7 paths would be...Farming, Big Business, Sea, Politics, Hollywood (Music & Entertainment), Sports & Astronaut.
I'm gonna regret saying this idea...
MYSTERY DATE: The girls game (once played by Homer Simpson) where there would be four good looking teens (rock star, sports jock, popular kid, scholar) along with that dreaded DUD! Of course the game would also be played for boys having four beautiful babes (cheerleader, athlete, musician, scholar) & that dreaded UGLY DUDLING!
-
[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Oct 19 2004, 02:55 PM\']
Some more board games I'd like to see.
BATTLESHIP: Two teams (celebrity/contestant) takes turns calling off the ocean grid, tyring to find their opponent's ships. There are 6, instead of 5 ships. Sinking a ship pays off...
SMALL SUB: 1 hole (starts @ $50,000 & decreases $1,000 per miss down to the minimum of $10,000)
DESTROYER: 2 holes ($5,000)
CRUISER: 3 holes ($2,500)
SUBMARINE: Same as Cruiser
BATTLESHIP: 4 holes ($1,000)
CARRIER: 5 holes ($500)
B-4. YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!
There actually *was* a TV game like this, long before MB put Battleship into a box. It was called "Big Game" and was one of the earliest shows hosted by Tom Kennedy. If any shows exist, I'd love to see it.
-
Boy did I goof! Big Game began on NBC in prime time on that dangerous year, 1958 (dangerous being for the big quiz show scandals). It was Tom's first network game show ever.
Milton Bradley made the Battleship game back in 1967.
YOU SUNK MY PRIDE!
-
Personal Preference by Broderbund
- One person chooses the order which one who prefer to experience four random objects or events; the others guess the order.
Times to Remember by Milton Bradley
- Each team has seven brackets sized from one through seven years. Players try to guess when an event took place using any of the brackets. If you are correct, you lose the bracket. The object is to lose all seven brackets.
Celebrities (public domain)
- Guess the names of famous people from clues given by your partner. The names are recycled for each subsequent round and each round the type of clue become more limited.
-
Times to Remember by Milton Bradley
Would work as a round or a part of or the bonus round to a game show about history or something, but on its own, it's pretty dull.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 02:21 PM\']Times to Remember by Milton Bradley
Would work as a round or a part of or the bonus round to a game show about history or something, but on its own, it's pretty dull.[/quote]
-Jason
[snapback]61496[/snapback]
Kind of like, "When Did That Happen?".
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 03:24 PM\'][quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 02:21 PM\']Times to Remember by Milton Bradley
Would work as a round or a part of or the bonus round to a game show about history or something, but on its own, it's pretty dull.[/quote]
Kind of like, "When Did That Happen?".[/quote]
Well, yeah, but better. I mostly agree with Alfonzo. When I first played Times to Remember, I thought it would make a pretty cool game show. There are lots of elements to it that are very game-showesque. It's clever and interesting in a traditional, 60s-70s sort of way with a bit of play-at-home factor to it. Still, it IS rather static and certainly couldn't fly today.
Of course, that's true of MOST of the board games that have been mentioned in this thread. The most common mistake that amateur producers make is thinking that a game that's fun to play will make a good game show, when what you really want is a game that's fun to watch.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 02:50 PM\'][quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 03:24 PM\'][quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 02:21 PM\']Times to Remember by Milton Bradley
Would work as a round or a part of or the bonus round to a game show about history or something, but on its own, it's pretty dull.[/quote]
Kind of like, "When Did That Happen?".[/quote]
Well, yeah, but better. I mostly agree with Alfonzo. When I first played Times to Remember, I thought it would make a pretty cool game show. There are lots of elements to it that are very game-showesque. It's clever and interesting in a traditional, 60s-70s sort of way with a bit of play-at-home factor to it. Still, it IS rather static and certainly couldn't fly today.
Of course, that's true of MOST of the board games that have been mentioned in this thread. The most common mistake that amateur producers make is thinking that a game that's fun to play will make a good game show, when what you really want is a game that's fun to watch.
[snapback]61499[/snapback]
[/quote]
"Times to Remember" sounds like another game, "Chronology" in which you build a hand of cards by inserting events into their proper place in a timeline. It's a little like the end-game on "History IQ," which was much more interesting than the rest of the show. It would have made a fine mini-game on "Time Machine." (Boy, that's a game that never comes up around here.)
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Oct 20 2004, 02:21 PM\']It would have made a fine mini-game on "Time Machine." (Boy, that's a game that never comes up around here.)
[snapback]61512[/snapback]
[/quote]
Why dwell on the negatives? :)
-
Smarty Party by R&R Games
Players guess items to fit a category but the penalties become stiffer as the game goes on.
Thingamajig by R&R Games
One player gives a clue to the others for a target word. The clue giver scores a point for everyone who gets the correct answer unless everybody gets it then the clue giver gets zero.
BTW, Things to Remember plays better than Chronology because TTR limits its events to 1950 to 1990. Chronology can go back to the beginning of civilization! One million B.C., A.D. 3; what's the difference? Who cares?
-
My wife and I played a game with some friends a few nights ago--actually, we'd given the game to the couple as a Christmas gift several years ago, but none of us remembered ever playing it. Anyway, it got me thinking about this topic again--but then, what board game doesn't?
Anybody have experience of a game called Perpetual Notion? I've already got it worked out as a format, but it'd no doubt play better in 1985 than it would today...
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 6 2004, 08:33 AM\']Anybody have experience of a game called Perpetual Notion? I've already got it worked out as a format, but it'd no doubt play better in 1985 than it would today...
[snapback]66224[/snapback]
[/quote]
I just looked it up on the 'Geek (boardgamegeek.com, for those of you scoring at home), and it's an interesting concept. I shall have to ask my gamer people if they have it kicking around someplace.
(For those too lazy to look it up on the 'Geek, each player has a tray of attributes and adjectives, and you string together a set of them, trying to think of an item that fits all of the cards thrown out to that point. So, for example, for "red", "sweet", and "fruity", "apple" might be an acceptable answer, until the next player puts down "bigger than a breadbox", in which case it turns into "watermelon".)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 6 2004, 12:50 PM\'](For those too lazy to look it up on the 'Geek, each player has a tray of attributes and adjectives, and you string together a set of them, trying to think of an item that fits all of the cards thrown out to that point. So, for example, for "red", "sweet", and "fruity", "apple" might be an acceptable answer, until the next player puts down "bigger than a breadbox", in which case it turns into "watermelon".)[/quote]
Or "A sunburned Richard Simmons".
Without knowing the details, it sounds like something that could have the same ugly flaw I associate with Pass the Buck: an over-reliance on judgement calls rather than hard-and-fast right answers.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:24 PM\']My ears are burning.
Two key elements of Can't Stop are the randomness of the dice, and the probability curve of the board. If you're looking to preserve the board game's flavor, you need to preserve these elements.
The simplest approach would be a Card Sharks model. Players compete on some sort of knowledge question, with the winner gaining control of the dice.
If time runs short, all in-progress markers are removed (only claimed columns stay) and the game switches to toss-up questions with a right answer earning a column.
The first player to reach the top of 3 columns wins the game.
For extra spice, each column awards a different prize for claiming it, if the claiming player wins the game. The prizes could be visible from the get-go, thus creating stronger incentive for players to attack certain columns, or they might be hidden until someone wins the column.
That's one approach, anyway.
[snapback]58144[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've personally would've thought that "Can't Stop" would be integrated nicely into a game show....
...Mine would work along the lines of that, but the bonus round will have the board cut out in half (to save for time), with the payoffs increase towards the outside ($2000 ----> $25000). Capturing three colums or more doubles it, potentially winning over $100,000!
of course, we can adjust that ;-)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 6 2004, 11:54 AM\']Without knowing the details, it sounds like something that could have the same ugly flaw I associate with Pass the Buck: an over-reliance on judgement calls rather than hard-and-fast right answers.
[snapback]66242[/snapback]
[/quote]
In that form, definitely. But if it became more of a communication game, like Password, I could see something with this overall theme being interesting.
-
Not a board game per se, but has "Twister" ever been piloted? For sweeps week we could have "The Battling Brookes" with Ms Burke vs. Ms Burns.
-
Judgement calls indeed.
It works like this: after another player has added a condition to the game that you think makes it impossible to come up with an answer, you may challenge; s/he then presents the case for her/his answer. Everybody votes.
I'd use the audience, or a subset thereof, to judge the challenges--with, maybe, a producer or three to break ties.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 6 2004, 09:18 PM\']Judgement calls indeed.
It works like this: after another player has added a condition to the game that you think makes it impossible to come up with an answer, you may challenge; s/he then presents the case for her/his answer. Everybody votes.
I'd use the audience, or a subset thereof, to judge the challenges--with, maybe, a producer or three to break ties.
[snapback]66302[/snapback]
[/quote]
The fatal problem with having the audience judge is that it has no motivation to be impartial or objective.
The part with three producers making a judgment call is just asking for two producers to be carried out on stretchers.
-
I think the judging issues being discussed would keep a direct translation of the game from happening. But the basic concept, where adding attributes leads to narrower and narrower answers, could be incorporated into a Pyramid-type or Chain-Reaction-type format, maybe.
Bob Stewart, gold courtesy phone, please... :)
-
The fatal problem with having the audience judge is that it has no motivation to be impartial or objective.
Good point. In my fantasy world, I had a large enough sample that it might overcome the tendency of "I'll vote for Player X 'cause I like him, no matter what he says." But it's problematical. (Fact is, the box game is problematical for the same reason.)
The part with three producers making a judgment call is just asking for two producers to be carried out on stretchers.
Being dense here: why? Innat their job?
-
One of the big problems with subjective calls in a tv game show vs. a board game is there's winning and money on the line. If a contestant is convinced in his heart of hearts he's right and the judges rule otherwise, things can get ugly. I tried to sell Dan Enright on a game of fast responses matching letters with categories (pre-Scattergories). He replied if the host said "name something slippery" and a letter on the board gave the contestant the opportunity to call out "a pickle" - would you give it to him? A wet pickle, maybe..and if in a judge's mind he equates the word "slippery" with hazardous, like ice or an oil spill, he might be predisposed to rule against it. Or, you might slip on a marble, but a marble in and of itself is not slippery. Games with variable answers are a judge's nightmare. I agree with Chris that a listing game with solid clues would be more workable than pulling answers out of the air and hoping for the best. If not more exciting, at least more fair. You don't want to punish creative players, but an answer that's a matter of opinion is harder to rule wrong.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 7 2004, 07:11 AM\']But it's problematical. (Fact is, the box game is problematical for the same reason.)
[/quote]
There are a LOT of party games that could be themselves "gamed" like that if played by the wrong crowd. The group I play with plays wide range of intense "gamer" games, light European games, and party games. When party game time rolls around, we're all aware that if we wanted to, we could get all intense and worry about kingmaking and what not, but that's not the point of a party game, the point of a party game is to specifically NOT think about that stuff, have fun, and let the chips fall where they may. So we have to remember to switch our brains over into that "mode" when we sit down for Taboo, Outburst, etc....
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 7 2004, 07:11 AM\']
The part with three producers making a judgment call is just asking for two producers to be carried out on stretchers.
Being dense here: why? Innat their job?
[snapback]66344[/snapback]
[/quote]
Can you imagine three Howard Felshers trying to arrive at a timely and satisfying judgment? You can rarely count on a committee of producers to arrive at a decision on where to have lunch, much less something that "matters" in their job. ;)
In a functional situation, only one producer is assigned to be the point person for judging. I'm really hard-pressed to think of a show where multiple producers made these sorts of decisions on a regular basis.