The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TimK2003 on May 29, 2007, 09:49:38 AM
-
What shows in the past had started out slow, due to their newness but gradually played quicker because strategies and patterns had formed and players/celebrities found a rhythm.
To be more specific, heres two classic examples:
1) The $xx,000 PYRAMID. In the $10,000 era, rarely did you see games get even close to a full 21-21 tie. When the 25K Pyramid came back to CBS, the 21-21 ties were so commonplace that there were bonus incentives if games ended in 21-21.
2) WHEEL OF FORTUNE. In the Woolery days, letter calling was more at random (i.e. calling for P's was nearly as frequent as S's). The predictable N-L-R-S-T-E's near the start of each puzzle did not really surface until the Sajak era.
Any other good examples???
-
Fleming's J! was originally intended to be a comedy game.
Jackpot went from riddles to straight Q&A.
-
On the original Password, they hit a groove with the lightning round after a while. Part of it was that there was a pattern to the words--the 5th became almost always an easy one you could get with an opposite.
It took Match Game '73 some time to figure out the pattern, first with funny fill-in-the-blanks, then with first round questions being wide open, second round with one definitive answer.
TPIR didn't start out with the "bid one dollar more than the person ahead of you" ploy. In fact, Cullen's version had rules for how close you could bid to another player.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'153670\' date=\'May 29 2007, 10:15 AM\']
Jackpot went from riddles to straight Q&A.
[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd say that was a smartening-up. There's nothing dumb about the wordplay involved in solving a good riddle.
-
One I thought of was Blockbusters...on the early episodes, people weren't really paying attention to picking blocks that might actually help their opponents out should they block. Later episodes show people staggering their picks to not allow their opponents to get that advantage.
I don't know if this counts or not, but how many people actually voted "Friend" in the second season of Friend or Foe?
A couple more from TPIR that I thought of:
1. $1 bids
2. The famous "ends in 0" rule in Ten Chances
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'153666\' date=\'May 29 2007, 06:49 AM\']What shows in the past had started out slow, due to their newness but gradually played quicker because strategies and patterns had formed and players/celebrities found a rhythm.[/quote]
1) The $xx,000 PYRAMID. In the $10,000 era, rarely did you see games get even close to a full 21-21 tie.
Of all of the answers I've seen, this is probably the best example, but I'm not sure why. Did the players not know what all they could do, or not understand that the idea was to finish in under 30 seconds? My ignorance here is due more to not having been around to see the $10k and $20k versions, but obviously the kinks were ironed out by the 80s, so I just figured that it always moved at a good clip.
(And for that matter, why the groans and fearing of "The Dreaded Name Category"? "He's the guy who was Hawkeye on MASH!" "Uh...uh...uh...")
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'153670\' date=\'May 29 2007, 07:15 AM\']Fleming's J! was originally intended to be a comedy game.
Jackpot went from riddles to straight Q&A.
[/quote]I call shenanigans on both of these. Jeopardy! was only a comedy game during the run-throughs, and the lateral thinking aspect of riddles has been covered.
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'153673\' date=\'May 29 2007, 07:44 AM\']TPIR didn't start out with the "bid one dollar more than the person ahead of you" ploy. In fact, Cullen's version had rules for how close you could bid to another player.[/quote]Which has been a "strategy" of auctions for years, if you think of "winning" an auction as not only getting the item, but paying the least amount possible. If you're willing to pay $1,000 for a painting, and the price is at $400, why bid $1,000?
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153682\' date=\'May 29 2007, 09:19 AM\']I don't know if this counts or not, but how many people actually voted "Friend" in the second season of Friend or Foe?[/quote]Only players who were willing to happily leave with nothing, I assume.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'153688\' date=\'May 29 2007, 01:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153682\' date=\'May 29 2007, 09:19 AM\']I don't know if this counts or not, but how many people actually voted "Friend" in the second season of Friend or Foe?[/quote]Only players who were willing to happily leave with nothing, I assume.[/quote]
So nearly everybody unhappily left with nothing because nearly everyone voted Foe.
-
[quote name='Neumms' date='May 29 2007, 10:44 AM' post='153673']
On the original Password, they hit a groove with the lightning round after a while. Part of it was that there was a pattern to the words--the 5th became almost always an easy one you could get with an opposite.
/quote]
Password is another great example. Not sure if voice inflections for opposites (up/down), pairs (pots/pans), orders (penny/nickel), etc... were part of the game from the get-go or if that slowly evolved (never saw enough of the old B&W Passwords) as the years went on.
I'll also throw in another example...The Joker's Wild.
Toward the end of the Barry run, if say a contestant had $450, their opponent had $300, and the contestant spun a triple worth $200. More contestants toward the end of the run would either reduce the triple, or they could go off the board for a question worth $50 (if they had at least a joker). That way they could win on the question while their opponent could not.
In the earlier days, most contestants would play the question for the maximum amount shown on the board.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'153694\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:39 PM\']
Toward the end of the Barry run, if say a contestant had $450, their opponent had $300, and the contestant spun a triple worth $200. More contestants toward the end of the run would either reduce the triple or go off the board for a question worth $50. That way they could win on the question while their opponent could not.
[/quote]
That wasn't an option if you got a natural triple, though, was it?
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'153695\' date=\'May 29 2007, 10:42 AM\']
That wasn't an option if you got a natural triple, though, was it?
[/quote]
Pretty sure it was. Nothing said you had to use all three (or even two) of what you spun. If you called it for $50, you were just throwing away the other two windows, is all. I could be wrong, tho.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153699\' date=\'May 29 2007, 01:53 PM\']
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'153695\' date=\'May 29 2007, 10:42 AM\']
That wasn't an option if you got a natural triple, though, was it?
[/quote]
Pretty sure it was. Nothing said you had to use all three (or even two) of what you spun. If you called it for $50, you were just throwing away the other two windows, is all. I could be wrong, tho.
[/quote]
Actually, no -- if you got a natural triple, it was $200, period. Same as if you got a double; you had to take it for at least $100. You could go for less only if one of the instances was a Joker.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'153704\' date=\'May 29 2007, 11:08 AM\']
Actually, no -- if you got a natural triple, it was $200, period. Same as if you got a double; you had to take it for at least $100. You could go for less only if one of the instances was a Joker.
[/quote]
Huh. Shows you what I remember. Fair enough. I guess the logic was that you had to take a question for the maximum displayed value, but if you wanted to make a Joker into Fast-Forward Podiatry in order to take Sports for $50, you could.
-
With "Pyramid" during the '80s, it seemed you had to play at tournament level every week, so you started getting only a small pool of celebrities that could play at that level. Mary Cadorette and Charles Siebert every couple of weeks got monotonous for me as a viewer.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'153709\' date=\'May 29 2007, 01:19 PM\']
With "Pyramid" during the '80s, it seemed you had to play at tournament level every week, so you started getting only a small pool of celebrities that could play at that level. Mary Cadorette and Charles Siebert every couple of weeks got monotonous for me as a viewer.
[/quote]
Well, at least Charles Siebert.
I don't know if this is smartening up or not, but it's funny to me how on Peter Marshall's Hollywood Squares, the first player almost never went to the center square (usually starting with Charley Weaver or George Gobel in the lower left), while on Bergeron's they almost always did.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'153712\' date=\'May 29 2007, 02:46 PM\']
I don't know if this is smartening up or not, but it's funny to me how on Peter Marshall's Hollywood Squares, the first player almost never went to the center square (usually starting with Charley Weaver or George Gobel in the lower left)
[/quote]
That's actually a good strategy...by taking a corner, you can set up the possibility of two different ways to win.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'153712\' date=\'May 29 2007, 11:46 AM\']
I don't know if this is smartening up or not, but it's funny to me how on Peter Marshall's Hollywood Squares, the first player almost never went to the center square (usually starting with Charley Weaver or George Gobel in the lower left), while on Bergeron's they almost always did.
[/quote]
The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing.
-
The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing.
I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often. Not saying that it never happened, of course, but I'd be willing to put my money on him giving me a right answer.
Probably the best choice at center square would have been Whoopi; I don't recall her really missing questions, and, the few times she did, she would always say, "I'm not too sure about this, but I'm going to say..."
But, maybe my memory's a little fuzzy...
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153722\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:28 PM\']
I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often. Not saying that it never happened, of course[/quote]
I hope not, because anyone who's read Peter Marshall's book knows that not only did Paul Lynde occasionally bluff, but he was a complete asshat about it; he intentionally tried to screw over the players in doing so. "Fooled you, didn't I?" ring a bell?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153718\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:12 PM\']The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing. [/quote]
Not only that, but because a lot of the players don't know basic tic-tac-toe strategy. Assume we number the squares as they were in the Tic Tac Dough endgame. If you start at 7 and agree/disagree correctly, the only correct place for your opponent to go is the center. However, they'll usually go to 2 or 6, so as not to set up a three-question win if they're wrong. If they pick 2, you then go to 9, they block at 8, and your block at 5 gives you two-thirds of each diagonal, so unless you miss your next question, your opponent is screwed.
If, on the other hand, you start in the middle, your opponent is correct to go to any of the corners, which they usually do, leaving you hoping for a five-square win unless they miss a question.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153723\' date=\'May 29 2007, 02:36 PM\'] [quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153722\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:28 PM\']
I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often. Not saying that it never happened, of course[/quote]
I hope not, because anyone who's read Peter Marshall's book knows that not only did Paul Lynde occasionally bluff, but he was a complete asshat about it; he intentionally tried to screw over the players in doing so. "Fooled you, didn't I?" ring a bell?
[/quote]
The Hooded Claw would be pleased. :-P
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'153688\' date=\'May 29 2007, 01:08 PM\']
1) The $xx,000 PYRAMID. In the $10,000 era, rarely did you see games get even close to a full 21-21 tie.
Of all of the answers I've seen, this is probably the best example, but I'm not sure why. Did the players not know what all they could do, or not understand that the idea was to finish in under 30 seconds?
[/quote]
This may sound a little obvious (hence my sig), but when the game first came out, you have to remember that no one had ever seen it before. Today it's part of the fabric of game show history, which is why it was so disappointing to so many of us to see it played so awkwardly by so many people on the Osmond version. When it was new, there was a learning curve as people started figuring the game out (which is why, as you said, it makes such a good example in this thread). Imagine playing charades for the first time, having never heard of it before. You could do it, but you wouldn't be as good as the people who've done it a lot and know their way around. Originally, no one knew their way around.
Also, since this hasn't been mentioned in a while, it's useful to know that originally, there was no such concept as "finishing" in 30 seconds. When people were averaging four or five correct answers a round, no mention was made that there was a finite number of answers available. Once people started getting better, we found that the total possible number of answers was eight, later reduced to seven. And as people got better still, more of a big deal was made about getting all seven as often as possible.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'153738\' date=\'May 29 2007, 04:51 PM\']
Also, since this hasn't been mentioned in a while, it's useful to know that originally, there was no such concept as "finishing" in 30 seconds. When people were averaging four or five correct answers a round, no mention was made that there was a finite number of answers available.
[/quote]
That just gave me an interesting idea for if and when they revive Pyramid. Instead of worrying about getting 7-in-:30 or 6-in-:20, just have contestants get as many as possible in the set number of time, with highest score after three rounds winning. I really don't think the average viewer would care about the 6-in-20/7-in-30 rule, let alone remember it.
Maybe just one the incentive for each match, then do a Super Six/Big Mystery 7-11.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'153740\' date=\'May 29 2007, 04:57 PM\']
...Have contestants get as many as possible in the set number of time, with highest score after three rounds winning.
[/quote]
Not to pull a clemon79, but isn't this how it's always been played?
It's important to have a finite number of clues available in each category. What game show writer wants to think of more than 6/7/8 things that fit into a certain category?
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'153743\' date=\'May 29 2007, 03:28 PM\']
Not to pull a clemon79, but isn't this how it's always been played?
[/quote]
Not when there is a maximum possible score of 21 points, it isn't.
(But your point about having a finite number of answers is correct.)
-
On the ABC show, they would break ties with "Things That Begin With A,B.C, etc" which would conceivably cover more than 7 or 8 words and could be pre-written by Webster.
-
An interesting thing about Donnymid is that the reduced time limit in the front game brought on far more terrible rounds and runaways. The players got worse AND the game got harder.
-
Players on TPIR boiled Check Game to it's basic essence: How much away from $5000 is the price of displayed item(s)?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'153745\' date=\'May 29 2007, 05:45 PM\']
On the ABC show, they would break ties with "Things That Begin With A,B.C, etc" which would conceivably cover more than 7 or 8 words and could be pre-written by Webster.
[/quote]
I didn't know Emmanuel Lewis wrote for game shows!
/I guess Henry Polic II had to host them.
//SPLAT!!! OK, I had it coming.
-
Going back to the Q about why name categories were dreaded on Pyramid: you're more likely to run into a famous name that someone hasn't heard of than you are a random thing-inna-list that someone hasn't heard of. Also, many names do not lend themselves to sounding out. If your partner can't remember or doesn't know the name "Alan Alda", what can you do but pass?
It's harder to tell, with both all-civilian play and format changes, but I think Scrabble had a notably higher caliber of play later in its run.
-
Absolutely. Early on, lots of people took Sprint words out to the last letter. Later, they'd buzz-in and get it on the clue alone. Plus people started going for bonus money specifically rather than happen into it all the time.
-Jason
-
My theory is that second-year contestants on any show will generally be much better than first-year contestants simply because they've had a chance to watch the game. The same applies to anything new to a show (like the Bonus Sprint).
-
Absolutely. Early on, lots of people took Sprint words out to the last letter. Later, they'd buzz-in and get it on the clue alone. Plus people started going for bonus money specifically rather than happen into it all the time.
I didn't see the last year of the original run, but by Scrabble '93, Chuck Woolery wouldn't *let* players buzz in if there was only one stopper left and money still available.
-
I didn't see the last year of the original run, but by Scrabble '93, Chuck Woolery wouldn't *let* players buzz in if there was only one stopper left and money still available.
That is because the pink and blue squares only added to the jakcpot that the Bonus Sprint was played for.
-
[quote name=\'gameboy2000\' post=\'153774\' date=\'May 30 2007, 03:41 AM\']
I didn't see the last year of the original run, but by Scrabble '93, Chuck Woolery wouldn't *let* players buzz in if there was only one stopper left and money still available.
That is because the pink and blue squares only added to the jakcpot that the Bonus Sprint was played for.
[/quote]
Way to miss the point, there, chief.
What HYHYBT was saying was that the quality of play had improved so much that at that point that fishing was a basic strategic point, and Chuck wouldn't allow players to solve early (figuratively, of course; I'm sure if a player insisted on it, he wouldn't have stopped them) when they stood to lose nothing by going fishing for pink & blue squares.
Now, if you're saying that the reason he was so overt in doing so was because it never benefited a contestant directly, instead, it benefited the contestant pool as a whole, that makes a little more sense.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153790\' date=\'May 30 2007, 11:38 AM\']
if you're saying that the reason he was so overt in doing so was because it never benefited a contestant directly, instead, it benefited the contestant pool as a whole, that makes a little more sense
[/quote]
I can see this, especially since in some cases Chuck may have wanted to get it off $1000 or some other pitiful amount.
-
Bumping this topic to add another show to this mix...
Comparing the Ludden shows that GSN is currently airing vs. the Kennedy shows, Password Plus seems to be another good example. The puzzles seemed relatively easy (most could be easily guessed within the first 3 clues), whereas with the Kennedy puzzles, good ones may not have been solved at all.
-
This is basically me repeating things I think I said here before, but for a good portion of Allen's tenure on P+, they had the clues arranged much differently from how they would be later. If the puzzle were "American Idol," they'd have SEACREST-SINGING-FOX-TELEVISION-COMPETITION, whereas later they'd be reversed. I mean, once you see Seacrest, you might as well guess Idol, and it's a shoe-in on word 2 unless you just never heard of the show.
Then I watched a few episodes from the Steve Allen/Jayne Meadows week of Kennedy's run, and roughly 5 out of 10 puzzles I saw went unsolved. As I recall, the five words didn't really lead you to one solution. Once "Super Password" came along, they started to get really tricky with the puzzles, almost deliberately leading you astray until the 3rd-5th words came in to make the early ones make sense. It was a good idea, but the contestants (and a good chunk of the celebrities) weren't very good at all, and would give great guesses like "JFK" when the word "Kennedy" was up.
-Jason