What would you call it?
I don\'t think I would call it Double Dare, since too many might confuse that with Marc Summers\' show. Maybe Dare?
I don\'t think I would call it Double Dare, since too many might confuse that with Marc Summers\' show.
\"Chutes and Ladders is no longer for kids only and you won\'t want to poke your eyes out.\"
Cartagena already has two sequels. :)
I believe someone on a site of their revival ideas had a concept for Double Dare \'76 and called it \"Dare Devils\"
ETA: Just checked, it was posted by Jason Wuthrich on his site.
That\'s Candy Land. There\'s a difference. :)Cartagena already has two sequels. :)
I came up with: \"Dare to Win\". Would that work?
Cartagena already has two sequels. :)
That\'s Candy Land. There\'s a difference. :)
Oh, you\'re right. Good point.
We could thief \"Who Dares Wins\" from England and Australia.
It would be awesome to have the Who Dares Wins title be applied to three entirely different formats around the world.
\"The clues show you which way to go, but dare you risk to Challenge Your Foe?\"
I never really thought of either of thosethings as problems.I\'d worry more about game play issues (the dared getting the same money as the darer in a Dare situation with one additional clue, a game ending on 2 questions) than I would about the name of the game.
Yes, this.Correct; what Mike is (probably) referring to:
If I get the subject right I score fifty bucks. I can either sit on that and play a new subject or dare you. If you\'re right the score is now 50-50, and you won that same prize money while having seen another clue.
If I get the subject right I score fifty bucks. I can either sit on that and play a new subject or dare you. If you\'re right the score is now 50-50, and you won that same prize money while having seen another clue.
Yes, this.
The difference between Double Dare and Card Sharks along with TJW is that there is much more random luck involved on the latter two shows. Double Dare doesn\'t involve 52 cards or a slot machine mechanism that the player has no control over. It puts the contestant in the position where they directly control their fate in the game.
Here\'s a question, just because I loved that show. Would you change the Spoilers round at all? I loved the concept. I\'d be tempted to play up the Spoilers\' personalities more--or lack of same--a little like The Chase. It did seem, though, like some rounds were hopeless, with more than four clues that seemed like easy gets.
That\'s a very interesting question; and here\'s my counter-question--how else do you have a bonus round using the Spoilers that is even to both sides. Sure, the contestant doesn\'t win by solving the puzzle (and 20Q showed how uninteresting that race could be) but the champion does have to use a modicum of intuition to play.
I love the idea of Spoilers, don\'t get me wrong, but it\'s sticky. If there are a couple of clues up there that could go either way, the concept works. Then it\'s just a matter of careful writing.
Then again, if five clues look like outright gimmies, then it doesn\'t seem like a challenge for the contestant, it\'s more like, \"boy, are they ever tight with the prize money.\"
Maybe there\'s an inherent flaw in a game that has you betting on \"don\'t pass.\" (Another example is the final round of Dog Eat Dog.) Maybe Spoilers would be better if instead of choosing clues, the game is deciding at what point the Spoilers know the answer. (More like the front game but at higher stakes.)
The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool. The first spoiler to get one right becomes the next contestant, and if no one gets it, then the person who would have joined as a spoiler jumps straight to the game.
The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool.
Exactly. This was the fundamental problem with Dog Eats Dog. Too many Ph.D.\'s.
I agree in theory it should work, but the questions didn\'t exactly require any depth of knowledge. It may be that top dogs and dog pounds each won 50% of the time, but that seems less due to perception and canniness than the whole contestant pool being dim. I thought the top dog should have the option of fielding the question himself. (If that swings the balance too far, then say top dog must successfully answer or stump on 4 of 5 instead of 3 of 5.)
The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool. The first spoiler to get one right becomes the next contestant, and if no one gets it, then the person who would have joined as a spoiler jumps straight to the game.
Brilliant! Succinct, logical, and easy to explain to the audience at home.
No, wait, what\'s the opposite of that.
OK, going back to that revival proposal I\'d seen, instead of the spoilers being Ph.D\'s, they were instead three members of that day\'s studio audience (specifically, the three who had scored the highest on a pre-taping screening test)
Someone wanna explain to me exactly what the problem was with the Spoilers being learned people? Specifically, why it was such a problem as to be worth going to the trouble of coming up with stupidly convoluted rules or administering a test to the studio audience to fix? \'Cuz I\'m not getting it.
I don\'t remember: which came first--The Better Sex or Double Dare?
Double Dare was December \'76, The Better Sex was July \'77.
OK, going back to that revival proposal I\'d seen, instead of the spoilers being Ph.D\'s, they were instead three members of that day\'s studio audience (specifically, the three who had scored the highest on a pre-taping screening test)
How about the Spoilers being past champions? You already know they\'re good at the game.
Damn I loved the casting of the Spoliers. Find the three most awkward doctorate owners you can, then stick them in booths to make it even more awkward. Awkward in a good way, I mean.
This precisely. This is why I wonder why some people have such a hard-on to change it.
There\'s a reason that you played for Ben Stein\'s money, or tried to defeat the American Gladiators or indeed to beat the Boring Spoilers.
And this as well. Playing audience members who tested well (or even superchamps) doesn\'t have nearly as much weight as Ph.D.s. Two doctors and a superchamp? MAYbe, but I have no problem with a panel of three docs. $5K was a decent chunk of change in 1977...playing audience members who just happened to have a good day isn\'t really exciting enough to give away 5 grand.
One thing I never understood... why didn\'t they ever mention what fields of study the Spoilers had Ph.D.\'s in?
Honestly...I don\'t know if there was any relevance in doing so, minus the curiosity factor. The contestant picked clues at random, so there was no advantage there in knowing a doctor\'s field of expertise. However...
Stay with me on this one, a lot of rambling speculation to follow...
I haven\'t watched an episode in years, so I can\'t remember, but if I am remembering the game correctly, you post a revealed (and incorrectly guessed*) clue to a doctor whose area of expertise has been revealed, it could make the game a little too easy and remove the challenge and mystery. Granted it poses a strategy if you know that Dr. Nick Riviera has a Ph.D. in biology, and a question about chlorophyll comes up. Again, it could also make things a little too easy.
*Or did this put the clue out of play?
And if none of that made any sense, then they did it \"Just because\".
If the contestant passed on the clue it went unseen by the Spoilers, if the contestant chose to \"give\" the clue, each Spoiler got a chance to guess at it, since none of the three could hear each other.*Or did this put the clue out of play?
And if none of that made any sense, then they did it \"Just because\".
I\'m gonna go with this; it sounds a hell of a lot more intimidating to build them up that way. (Otherwise their specialty is pretty irrelevant; it\'s not like the player has much control over the subject being presented to Teh Spoilers.
I remember DVR\'ing \"Double Dare\" on GSN thinking it was the classic Marc Summers game... and was actually not disappointed when I found out it wasn\'t.
And if none of that made any sense, then they did it \"Just because\".
I\'m gonna go with this; it sounds a hell of a lot more intimidating to build them up that way. (Otherwise their specialty is pretty irrelevant; it\'s not like the player has much control over the subject being presented to Teh Spoilers.
I checked out an episode last night. For some reason, I thought the player selected which Spoiler he or she wanted to answer. Seeing now that they ask each doctor one by one as Travis mentioned, I totally agree that the specialty is irrelevant.