The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on April 15, 2012, 07:50:33 AM
-
Bullseye - In theory, not that I recall this happening, a player selects a $100 per question category and has a Bullseye. They answer 19 in a row, but miss question 20. Player 2 answers it and wins the game with just 1 answer, vs. 19 being answered by the other player.
The Joker's Wild - The challenger spins 3 jokers and answers a question correctly. The champion is not even given a final spin to try to tie. It also irked me if a player had $450 and got 3 jokers, they'd only win $500 total for the game.
Card Sharks - When the first card is an ace or a deuce, why must the player say "higher" or "lower" when no other option is possible? "You have an ace." They won't get rid of it. I'd be very hard pressed to see anybody freeze on it. Why must they say "lower"? In fact, if they say "higher", the host would say "You really think it's HIGHER?" or something to that effect.
Some shows had seemingly unfair rules but amended them. Scrabble for instance. If the crossword game was tied 2-2, they didn't always play speedword, and that gave the player who controlled the tiles for word #5 an unfair advantage. I like that they incorporated speedword for a "tie-breaking" method.
Price is Right - The last contestant to be called down gets only 1 opportunity to bid on a prize & make it up on stage while some might be down there for 6 tries. If the show wants to be more fair-minded, and speed things up, call down 4 players for the first half of the show, after the first game, the remaining 3 bid, after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid. The one who doesn't make it becomes a contestant not appearing on stage. Start the 2nd half calling down 4 more players, again giving all of them up to 3 chances to bid & win. It would require one less person to call down overall. It would speed up things some in contestants' row, and perhaps allow a little bit more time for Drew & stage players to interact and/or play more pricing games that are more involved.
Let the flame throwers begin. I'd like to hear other observances from others about games or game shows that have flawed rules or fixes you'd make if you produced.
-
UK Countdown's scoring system allows games to frequently end in runaways or outright blowouts.
When the score is 117 to 25 (really happened on an episode I watched recently), having the last round be worth just 10 points is really silly.
-
Using your Bullseye scenario, if you got a "bullseye" you had the option to bank after every question, If you take the gamble , get 19 in a row and blow the 20th (and your opponent answers and wins ) well...sucks to be you.
-
A large purpose of a show is to keep a viewer engaged and often in a designated time frame. That may result in a game being less than fair*. Countdown (and Jeopardy), which either do not artificially inflate a scoring system towards the end or make the material more challenging to make up for it, takes a large part of their engagement from the viewer trying to compete with the contestant.
$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.
(*It's 3-1 for the Wings over the Predators in the third period, but the Preds can come right back in a hurry since goals in the third period count for 3!)
-
(*It's 3-1 for the Wings over the Predators in the third period, but the Preds can come right back in a hurry since goals in the third period count for 3!)
Oh, this has Karn written all over it. "The Red Wings have drawn first blood! But that's OK, because in the third period we've DOUBLED THE POINTS!!!!11!!1!"
-
The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.
$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.
Practice round. Calm the jitters of being on-camera.
-
Here's a catch-all pet peeve violated on many of the classic shows: "We'll add up the scores after the break." It did not matter when channel surfing was a budding artform by sliding the plastic arrow on the set-top box, but basically it was an admission that there was no more show left, despite the fact that it is 7 minutes to the half-hour. Placing the fee plugs at the end of the show just adds to it.
Also, those shows that had carryover gameplay would frequently padded the end of a show with a contestant interview, with that contestant never having a chance to play on that episode. Then, at the top of tomorrow's show, let's get reacquainted with this person. Ugh! I know that they were kind of stuck when time was short, but this was not an entertaining solution.
-
The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.
$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.
Practice round. Calm the jitters of being on-camera.
There are a bunch of shows whose first couple rounds really don't mean anything as far as the outcome of the game is concerned- Body Language immediately comes to mind. But yeah, I'd have to chalk it up to on camera practice as well.
I have a problem with Wheel's Prize Puzzle. Often times, that helps decide the game, and even more so during weeks where pairs play the game and the trips can hit five figures.
-
Not sure if this counts, but how about Press Your Luck near the end of the run. The round 2 board changed many times during the shows' run, and it was during the final year that the budget (in cash alone), hit rock bottom. It went from over $50K grand in the beginning in 1983, to less than $40K in mid-1986. Don't take this the wrong way. I enjoy the 1986 episodes of PYL. They had just as many exciting moments as the ones we're used to seeing. But you know your round 2 board is in trouble when it's less than $40K in cash alone (compared to early in the run), when a Pick-A-Corner hit results in choosing between $1,400/$500+S/$1,400, and a choice between $1,500/$500 as depicted here. (http://"http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6664/10137928.png")
-
Not sure if this counts, but how about Press Your Luck near the end of the run. The round 2 board changed many times during the shows' run, and it was during the final year that the budget (in cash alone), hit rock bottom. It went from over $50K grand in the beginning in 1983, to less than $40K in mid-1986. Don't take this the wrong way. I enjoy the 1986 episodes of PYL. They had just as many exciting moments as the ones we're used to seeing. But you know your round 2 board is in trouble when it's less than $40K in cash alone (compared to early in the run), when a Pick-A-Corner hit results in choosing between $1,400/$500+S/$1,400, and a choice between $1,500/$500 as depicted here. (http://"http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6664/10137928.png")
Well, for that show, a few more Whammies on the board would correct some of the budget overages and entertain Joe Sixpack and Mary Homemaker.
-
The one-strike Triple round from the first few years of "Feud"'s current run. It oftentimes made the first three rounds irrelevant. I liked the one-strike concept, just not the sudden tripling of points. You're doing a four-round show, why not just make round three Double?
At least they fixed it later in the run, even if it meant hearing Richard Karn yell about it.
-
For the Joker's Wild thing (the challenger spins 3 Jokers on his/her first spin and answers the question right to win before the champ gets a spin), did the show have a rule that, if a player didn't get a turn in the game, then he/she could come back the next game?
I ask because I know both Bullseye and Tic Tac Dough had similar rules (Bullseye: champion gets Bullseye, runs the category and wins on first turn; Tic Tac: Bonus Category allows the champion to keep answering questions until he/she wins).
Having two practice rounds on Body Language didn't bother me so much, except that, for the rounds that counted, you were relying on the celebrities to guess and get the puzzle right for you. I thought it would have been more fair to allow the contestant to choose what role he/she wanted in those rounds.
Anthony
-
One of my pet peeves is NOT the producers' fault.
On Joker's Wild, when the champion had just one opportunity to try to tie/defeat the challenger, Jack Barry (or Jim Peck/Bill Cullen), would explain all the possibilities of doing so.
When a game used a "Fast Forward," category, it was always explained that it was possible for the champ to use that as a last resort (even if it came up singly for $50/question). Sometimes contestants would quickly forget about that, and thus chose one of the other categories for $50, and then "It's all over!"
Of course, lots of contestants get nervous, and that's why it happens!
IIRC, I'd seen the challenger take the "Fast Forward" category, rack up $500, but chose to keep on going, for at least two additional questions! Eventually, an incorrect answer was given by the player, dropping him/her back to his/her previous amount, and the champ eventually won the game!
-
The one-strike Triple round from the first few years of "Feud"'s current run. It oftentimes made the first three rounds irrelevant.
To be fair, the first three rounds are still pretty irrelevant- hence why I would put my best face off people in the fourth and fifth positions. Your only real advantage to winning the first three rounds is if you win them all, because you can then afford to lose the Triple Round.
-
The Sudden Death round on Winning Lines. One of the following two scenarios must happen:
A) All six numbers are represented in the first six questions, giving a huge advantage to the person whose number comes up 6th.
B) All six numbers are NOT represented in the first six questions, giving not only a huge advantage to the person whose number doesn't come up, but a huge disadvantage to the person whose number comes up twice.
-
after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid.
Contestant #1: $500
Contestant #2: $501
Boy, that just makes things so fun, doesn't it?
Start the 2nd half calling down 4 more players, again giving all of them up to 3 chances to bid & win. It would require one less person to call down overall.
You've been playing the Gametek TPiR game lately, haven't you?
It also irked me if a player had $450 and got 3 jokers, they'd only win $500 total for the game.
But if they have $100 and spin 3 jokers; that landmark feat is worth $400?When the first card is an ace or a deuce, why must the player say "higher" or "lower" when no other option is possible?
I think you answered your own question. The only other option is to freeze. They have to choose something, as the possibility of another two or ace coming as the next card exists.
I've never cared for shows with scoring structures like H². If you win 4 games, you shouldn't be able to win one and force a tie.
-
The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.
$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.
Practice round. Calm the jitters of being on-camera.
My personal theory is that it was more about slowing down the main game, since the progressive jackpots on Ca$hword and the endgame meant that it was costing them at least $6,000 every time through regardless of whether either one was won or lost.
-
Bullseye - In theory, not that I recall this happening, a player selects a $100 per question category and has a Bullseye. They answer 19 in a row, but miss question 20. Player 2 answers it and wins the game with just 1 answer, vs. 19 being answered by the other player.
Player in control should have quit with $1900, then. No sympathy; that's why 'daring' was part of the opening tease.
Card Sharks - When the first card is an ace or a deuce, why must the player say "higher" or "lower" when no other option is possible? "You have an ace." They won't get rid of it. I'd be very hard pressed to see anybody freeze on it. Why must they say "lower"? In fact, if they say "higher", the host would say "You really think it's HIGHER?" or something to that effect.
Because you don't want to create "special situations" if you can help it. Let the contestant yell "lower!" at the top of their lungs and win the game. It doesn't hurt anything.
Price is Right - The last contestant to be called down gets only 1 opportunity to bid on a prize & make it up on stage while some might be down there for 6 tries.
That's unfortunate, but there isn't really an elegant solution to fix it.
Let the flame throwers begin.
Where'd this come from?
-
For the Joker's Wild thing (the challenger spins 3 Jokers on his/her first spin and answers the question right to win before the champ gets a spin), did the show have a rule that, if a player didn't get a turn in the game, then he/she could come back the next game?
During the first year or so, yes. When the show debuted in 1972 the champion sat on camera left and spun first. When the champ got three jokers in the first spin, the challenger would always be invited back because they didn't get a chance to play. I think was usually the next game, but in one of the CBS episodes GSN ran, they came back another day.
Sometime around early '74 they changed it so the champ sat camera right and spun second. After this occurred, they no longer had that rule because the champ had already played and won something anyway.
-
On Body Language and Password Plus/Super Password, the celeb always acted out or gave the clues in the bonus round. I thought the contestant should be given the option or giving or receiving the clues, a la Pyramid. Some celebs were not as swift as others.
-
The one-strike Triple round from the first few years of "Feud"'s current run. It oftentimes made the first three rounds irrelevant.
Every round that does not directly determine the winning family is irrelevant. Family Feud is no different than The Cheap Show in that fashion, Feud is just less overt about it. The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.
-
The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.
I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back. Do you think that would've helped?
-
I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back. Do you think that would've helped?
I don't think Feud needs much "help," given how long they've been on. I think it makes for a good "show" to have a tense and quick final round.
-
The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.
I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back. Do you think that would've helped?
They ditched the 1-strike round in fall 2003, Karn's second season. Honestly, I enjoyed the first few seasons*, in spite of Louie's mumbling hosting, but that round just never sat well with me. The strategy was there, but like Travis said, it nearly negated everything that happened prior.
*I still watch it from time to time, but there's small things that have annoyed me over the years, not just the desperately sexual questions.
-
They ditched the 1-strike round in fall 2003, Karn's second season. Honestly, I enjoyed the first few seasons*, in spite of Louie's mumbling hosting, but that round just never sat well with me. The strategy was there, but like Travis said, it nearly negated everything that happened prior.
You could call the sudden death question a one-strike round, if you were of a mind. They've awarded tournament of champions jackpots on that single question, having played six more to get there. As long as you take questions four and five, you can nap through the first three questions and still win the game. Depending on how you look at that, this is either a bug or a feature.
-
If round five were a full round, it would not be so bad. As it is, bug, not feature.
-
after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid.
Contestant #1: $500
Contestant #2: $501
Boy, that just makes things so fun, doesn't it?
This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.
-
This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.
Then, by definition, it isn't fixed, is it?
-
This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.
Then, by definition, it isn't fixed, is it?
In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed. In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept. However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not. Not only would the purists, by definition, star squealing, but Joe Sixpack, by definition, wouldn't be able to follow along as easily.
-
In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed. In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept. However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not.
Well, we're making TV here, not fairness.
-
In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed. In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept. However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not.
Well, we're making TV here, not fairness.
This.
-
In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed. In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept. However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not.
Well, we're making TV here, not fairness.
My point exactly. By definition.
-
My point exactly. By definition.
That was pretty much the opposite of your point as presented. But, whatever.
-
Condo board regulations disallow me from having a pet without the proper shots and documents, so I'll just say I find it bizarre that a game show exists where you can write down the correct response and still lose money.
-
so I'll just say I find it bizarre that a game show exists where you can write down the correct response and still lose money.
Huh?
-
Last night on Jeopardy a contestant wrote down the correct question but hadn't completely crossed out her first guess. So her response registered as "Who is Samuel
Clemens Hal Holbrook?" so she lost her title belt. And about $20,000 additional prize money.
-
Last night on Jeopardy a contestant wrote down the correct question but hadn't completely crossed out her first guess. So her response registered as "Who is Samuel Clemens Hal Holbrook?" so she lost her title belt. And about $20,000 additional prize money.
And that was the right call IMO.
-
Last night on Jeopardy a contestant wrote down the correct question but hadn't completely crossed out her first guess. So her response registered as "Who is Samuel Clemens Hal Holbrook?" so she lost her title belt. And about $20,000 additional prize money.
I seldom watch Jeopardy! anymore, simply because I've become disgusted with how frequently they rule someone right then later neg them because of a barely noticeable mispronunciation, or rule someone wrong in FJ because of an added or missing letter. Yeah, it's their show and I get the reasoning why they do it and that there's a rhyme and reason to what is and isn't acceptable, but when they pull crap like asking about the Berensta]/b]in bears, it annoys me to a degree that I don't want to watch anymore.
Of course, I decided to watch yesterday. And as usual, it left me feeling more miserable at the end of the half hour than at the beginning. But at the same time, I do agree with this one; if "Samuel" wasn't crossed out it's "Samuel Hal Holbrook" and that's a completely wrong name, not a obvious misspelling.
-
...but when they pull crap like asking about the Berenstain bears, it annoys me to a degree that I don't want to watch anymore.
Huh? "Berenstain" is the correct spelling (http://www.amazon.com/The-Berenstain-Bears-Too-Much/dp/0394865707/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334717702&sr=1-2).
-
$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.
Me, too. However, it has a very nice side effect. In order to win the game, you must solve at least one puzzle where the contestants are giving the clues.
-
...but when they pull crap like asking about the Berenstain bears, it annoys me to a degree that I don't want to watch anymore.
Huh? "Berenstain" is the correct spelling (http://www.amazon.com/The-Berenstain-Bears-Too-Much/dp/0394865707/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334717702&sr=1-2).
True, but this was a regular clue, and they ruled against someone who gave the (common) mispronounciation of "Beren-steen".
While "stain" is technically correct, very few people actually know that it's spelled with an A.
-
...but when they pull crap like asking about the Berenstain bears, it annoys me to a degree that I don't want to watch anymore.
Huh? "Berenstain" is the correct spelling (http://www.amazon.com/The-Berenstain-Bears-Too-Much/dp/0394865707/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334717702&sr=1-2).
True, but this was a regular clue, and they ruled against someone who gave the (common) mispronounciation of "Beren-steen".
While "stain" is technically correct, very few people actually know that it's spelled with an A.
Beren-steen is not the pronunciation. There's no technical correction there, it's wrong.
-
I never said it wasn't.
-
I never said it wasn't.
But the way I read it, you're implying that "Beren-steen" should be called correct.
-
But the way I read it, you're implying that "Beren-steen" should be called correct.
I would have accepted it as correct. Jeopardy has their principles, but they've lost a sense of humanity in the game in return. We are Borg. Resistance is useless. You will be ruled incorrect.
/The worse thing? In the "Bejamin Franklin" episode the winner didn't even bother to cover a right answer by Emily.
-
But the way I read it, you're implying that "Beren-steen" should be called correct.
I would have accepted it as correct. Jeopardy has their principles, but they've lost a sense of humanity in the game in return. We are Borg. Resistance is useless. You will be ruled incorrect.
At ease, Mr. Worf. Point taken, but if I pronounce your last name "eee-burl" I'm sure that'd be called wrong, or if someone pronounced the first syllable in my last name "pale".
Case by case basis, though, I guess.
-
But the way I read it, you're implying that "Beren-steen" should be called correct.
I would have accepted it as correct. Jeopardy has their principles, but they've lost a sense of humanity in the game in return. We are Borg. Resistance is useless. You will be ruled incorrect.
Exactly. Hell, I grew up with Berenstain Bears books and never even heard the correct pronunciation used until Jeopardy made a deal out of it. Like Chris said, they're making TV, not fairness, and while it's nice that they're trying to be as fair as possible, from my standpoint they're making the show much less enjoyable to watch in the process.
-
At ease, Mr. Worf.
I just finished the season four finale: Redemption. Good stuff.
Point taken, but if I pronounce your last name "eee-burl" I'm sure that'd be called wrong,
Interesting you mention that. Growing up I had a rather long list of ways that schools and hospitals and various other people/organizations misspelled my name. I'd probably say "It's pronounced 'ebb-early,' but good effort." I'd judge (there's that pesky word again!) whether you know the answer or were just making it up. Since I'm not Travis Smith, I'd give you the benefit.
Case by case basis, though, I guess.
I would love for Jeopardy to judge on a case-by-case basis.
-
At ease, Mr. Worf.
I just finished the season four finale: Redemption. Good stuff.
I'm not much of a Star Trek fan (TNG especially), but if "I, Borg" isn't one of the best two part episodes of any TV series I've seen, I'd be surprised.
Case by case basis, though, I guess.
I would love for Jeopardy to judge on a case-by-case basis.
I was kind of speaking more in a GSF sense, if we were Jeopardy! solutions. I mean, Chad Mosher's name looks like it could be pronounced like a word describing some idiot jumping around at a concert flailing for no reason, and if it wasn't for Johnny Gilbert I wouldn't have known that the host of Quizbusters' last name is pronounced with a hard G and not a soft G.
Just for clarification sakes, so all is appearing at least cool. :)
-
Just for clarification sakes, so all is appearing at least cool. :)
Like a cucumber. One of the things I enjoy about the good ol' forum is that people can come here with different ideas, present them, hear the other side, and make their own decisions without any nonsense. We may or may not agree, but by golly, we'll be civil about it. :)
-
I'd probably say "It's pronounced 'ebb-early,' but good effort."
Honestly, that was my first guess.
The one I don't get is why nearly everyone spells my first name Bobbie and/or asks me how to spell Peacock.
-
Exactly. Hell, I grew up with Berenstain Bears books and never even heard the correct pronunciation used until Jeopardy made a deal out of it.
It could be heard in the opening to their videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to0cXeqxh-A).
And if people don't realize "stain" is pronounced "stain" and not "steen," that's hardly the fault of "Jeopardy!".
[quote name=PYLdude]...and if it wasn't for Johnny Gilbert I wouldn't have known that the host of Quizbusters' last name is pronounced with a hard G and not a soft G.[/quote]
I did, but then, my name also ends with -nger.
However, you wouldn't be called wrong on "Jeopardy!" for that.