The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: alfonzos on May 22, 2025, 12:54:32 PM
-
I enjoy playing along with the contestants. That is got me hooked on “Concentration” at the age of four. Anyway, “Jeopardy!” never was my strongest game and the current version only tempers my enthusiasm. It used to be that the players would start with the easy answers and work their way toward the harder one. If I couldn’t play along at least the show was building to a climax.
Now that Watson has shown that the way to win is controlling Daily Doubles players are going all over the board shopping for them. I find this unsatisfying as a viewer. It doesn’t help that I don’t really care who wins.
I guess I will have to stick to the home games.
-
Is that Watson or Arthur Chu, tho? Feels like he brought back the “Forrest Bounce” fishing for Daily Doubles.
-
For me, Jeopardy is no fun anymore, not only due to players hopping around and starting with the harder clues, but also the far too "niche" categories used anymore.
I would not mind if a board had 1 or maybe 2 niche categories per round but most times 3 to 4 categories or more are just weird categories to me anymore.
-
"niche" categories
I'm legitimately curious. What's an example of a "'niche' category" to you?
-
"niche" categories
I'm legitimately curious. What's an example of a "'niche' category" to you?
For fun I checked the most recent episodes on J-archive because I think I know what the complaint is and I can see how a definition of "niche categories" could be an aesthetic bugbear for some.
I'm generally neutral-to-positive about the categories they write but then I see "GEOLOGIC TIME DIVISIONS AS FRIENDS EPISODE TITLES"
-
Since we've got a new thread about people's J! bugaboos, let me add that the producers should ban the word "colorful" from clues.
-
Is that Watson or Arthur Chu, tho? Feels like he brought back the “Forrest Bounce” fishing for Daily Doubles.
I'd presume Arthur did that (and honestly, it's not a bad thing to do). Everyone else followed suit after that.If anything, the Master's series broke my brain and further proof that I (and my partner, for that matter, also a Jeopardy nerd) are mere mortals.
-
It seems odd to say Watson ruined Jeopardy when we are 14 years gone from it. I’d say if you don’t like it, don’t watch but I’d rather discuss critiques that are more recent.
-
It seems odd to say Watson ruined Jeopardy when we are 14 years gone from it. I’d say if you don’t like it, don’t watch but I’d rather discuss critiques that are more recent.
that awful upstart Trebek ruined J! for me
he’s certainly no Art Fleming, that’s for sure
-
While Watson was definitely mis-blamed in the title of the OP, it's definitely fair to say that the tactics of several recent long-running champs (Chu, Holzhauer, Amodio, etc.), coupled with Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport," have made the show feel less accessible to casual fans and non-hardcore trivia buffs. I hesitate to call a format that hasn't really changed much in 60+ years "broken," but the Internet and the ability of just about anyone to analyze the best strategies for the game have definitely caught up with it, and even though fans will scream bloody murder, they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later. I know it probably would never happen, but just as a brainstorm, I would consider bringing back a staple of the B&E quizzers of the '50s...at the end of each show, the champ has the option to quit with their winnings or come back. If they choose to continue and lose, however, the new champ's winnings come out of their score.
-
It seems to me the "problem" of players hunting for Daily Doubles is incredibly easy to fix. Start putting them in the top row more often, and maybe even put both in the same category. Make it truly arbitrary where they go.
-
I don't know that it is arbitrary because you want those clues to have a bit more thought and time devoted to them, but to your point, what if it was a truly random selection?
If we're in this next iteration of Jeopardy, why don't we have players cracking fifty grand on the regular? It seems like for every winner of twenty grand we get three games where the players are barely clearing half the cash on the board? Where are the players who are winning those thirty and forty game runs? Perhaps it is that the players we are seeing are by and large not capable of winning fifty grand a day for a month, and that's fine. I prefer the aberrations be rare.
If you don't like players playing bottom up or hopscotch? That's fine, but let's be honest about it. If there's a champion I don't care for I will blip to FJ to see fi there's a turnover. There are lots of shows I don't watch because I don't find them compelling or compelling enough to bump off something else. I don't think it is fair to say "Watson ruined it" given how far away we are from that.
-
It seems to me the "problem" of players hunting for Daily Doubles is incredibly easy to fix. Start putting them in the top row more often, and maybe even put both in the same category. Make it truly arbitrary where they go.
A noble thought, but I think no matter where you put Daily Doubles, you're not going to undo the behavior of players looking for them above all else. Or at the very least, changing the common locations wouldn't suddenly make people play in the top-down-dominant style of the '80s and '90s. If DDs were suddenly in the top row even 10% of the time, that would be a problem of a different stripe, where these (often) game-deciding clues are now much, much easier.
And despite Alex supporting the notion in interviews, and the writers even calling out (https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5985), I never bought that idea that categories are much easier to play if taken top-down. Every once in a while, a wordplay tack is hard to grasp without an easier-to-play example, or something like that. But for the most part, the order doesn't seem to inform understanding or success.
-Jason
-
The incredibly easy fix, to the degree that this is actually a "problem", is simply to make it a rule that they have to play categories top to bottom.
-
Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport,"
they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later.
The first part is why the second part won't happen. Sports generally don't introduce game-altering changes on a regular basis. In the past couple of decades, there's been Major League Baseball's pitch timer... and anything else?
And despite Alex supporting the notion in interviews, and the writers even calling out (https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5985), I never bought that idea that categories are much easier to play if taken top-down.
While I agree that not every category is made easier if played from the top to the bottom, there are instances when being exposed to earlier clues can help. For example, if a contestant is unsure whether a bottom-row clue is referring to Monet or Renoir, if a previous clue in the category already mentioned one of the two artists, the contestant would know to eliminate that option.
The benefit becomes more apparent in a category with a limited number of possible responses -- for example, a category in which all the answers are continents. Or a category that aired a little under a month ago in which the contestants had to identify the silent vowel in a word -- if the category had been played top to bottom, the fourth-row clue probably wouldn't have been a stand-and-stare.
There are also benefits for the home audience, and not just the more satisfying feeling of material gradually increasing in difficulty as the round progresses. For the categories in which the writers attempt a clever-but-convoluted manner of presenting all five clues, it's no fun when a contestant starts with the second-hardest clue, none of the contestants understand what's going on, and the host has to explain what the contestants were expected to do after no one rings in. Better to have all that happen during the clue with the lowest stakes... or maybe that first clue is easy enough that the gimmick is more evident, demonstrating to everybody how the category works. (This is also the case for categories in which the host explains at the top of the round what the contestants will have to do, the category isn't selected until the round is halfway over, and everybody has forgotten that they need to, say, respond with the name of the movie character.)
It doesn't help with every category, or even a majority of categories (however, note how useful it was in the "P"s & "Q"s category in the linked episode), but when it goes wrong, it's rough to watch.
-
Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport,"
they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later.
The first part is why the second part won't happen. Sports generally don't introduce game-altering changes on a regular basis. In the past couple of decades, there's been Major League Baseball's pitch timer... and anything else?
Larger bases, rules regarding catchers blocking the plate, stadiums moving outfield walls in or out, pitchers facing a minimum number of batters unless injury happens, torpedo bats (not an MLB change)...
-
There are also benefits for the home audience, and not just the more satisfying feeling of material gradually increasing in difficulty as the round progresses. For the categories in which the writers attempt a clever-but-convoluted manner of presenting all five clues, it's no fun when a contestant starts with the second-hardest clue, none of the contestants understand what's going on, and the host has to explain what the contestants were expected to do after no one rings in. Better to have all that happen during the clue with the lowest stakes... or maybe that first clue is easy enough that the gimmick is more evident, demonstrating to everybody how the category works. (This is also the case for categories in which the host explains at the top of the round what the contestants will have to do, the category isn't selected until the round is halfway over, and everybody has forgotten that they need to, say, respond with the name of the movie character.)
It doesn't help with every category, or even a majority of categories (however, note how useful it was in the "P"s & "Q"s category in the linked episode), but when it goes wrong, it's rough to watch.
I understand your points and they make a lot of sense, but I'm (maybe one of the few) who really doesn't mind how the game is played now. Watching for years (decades) seeing almost every contestant play the same way got a bit stale.
I'm not fond of the idea of making it mandatory to play top-down. If a player in third place gets control of the board late in the round and there's a daily double left, they should have the option to hunt for it and try to get themselves back in the game.
I know this has been brought up before, but why not have some sort of signal half-way thru the round. For the first half they have to take top-down, but as soon as the signal goes they're free to take anything - that way it has kind of the best of both worlds and may help contestants who struggle to get control.
-
The first part is why the second part won't happen. Sports generally don't introduce game-altering changes on a regular basis. In the past couple of decades, there's been Major League Baseball's pitch timer... and anything else?
-NFL started replay challenges in 1999 and has since trickled down to all major sports. The major changes to NFL overtime started in 2010 and continue to this day. Also, NFL Kickoffs and onside kicks have been tweaked multiple times within the last 10 years or so.
-College football overtime has been in place only since 1996 and has recently been altered further in 2019 and 2021. And let's not talk about the postseason.
-NHL gave out points for overtime losses in the late 90's, started shootouts in 2005, and went to 3-on-3 overtimes in 2015 (they were 4-on-4 since 1999).
-NASCAR started playoffs in 2004 and in-race "stages" in 2017.
-The current point system for Formula 1 has been in place since 2010 and other recent changes include fuel-free pit stops, DRS, and the introduction of sprint races.
-The NBA's rules against players leaving the bench also would've been within the past 20 years (Malice In The Palace was 2005) and have introduced the Play-In Tournament and NBA Cup within the past 5.
-
Michael Davies openly saying he wants to produce the show as if it were a "sport,"
they may need to introduce a major twist to shake things up sooner or later.
The first part is why the second part won't happen. Sports generally don't introduce game-altering changes on a regular basis. In the past couple of decades, there's been Major League Baseball's pitch timer... and anything else?
Larger bases, rules regarding catchers blocking the plate, stadiums moving outfield walls in or out, pitchers facing a minimum number of batters unless injury happens, torpedo bats (not an MLB change)...
I'd say those rule changes aren't analogous to the suggested "Top-down" rule being proposed because they don't dictate a fundamental change in how the game must be played. These rule changes are more along the lines of doubling the dollars, adjusting clue difficulty, etc. Perhaps the addition of the tie-breaker.
Adding a top-down requirement would be more like NFL eliminating the field goal, or MLB saying you have to keep running until you reach home or get tagged.
-
Some examples of "niche" categories (just my opinion):
EPONYMOUS CAPITAL CITY AIRPORTS
WANNA BE AN AMERICAN IDIOM
SEEK & YE SHALL FIND
AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
LET'S HIT HIGHWAY 101
HOT CROSS BUNNIES
VENTURE BROS.
PUT SOME RESPECT ON MY NAME
-
LET'S HIT HIGHWAY 101
I went to j-archive on this one. You can only say "California Landmarks" so many times.
-
The weirdest thing about The Modern Jeopardy Tactic as a viewer is that it frontloads all the stakes, so all the big money gets taken off the board first and then at the end of the round, which in theory should be the most exciting bit you're building up to, you've got four minutes of playing easy questions for pennies.
-
Let's piss everyone off and insert a random selector.
-
Let's piss everyone off and insert a random selector.
If nothing else, this would give them an excuse to bring back the beep-boop board loading sound effect.
-
Let's piss everyone off and insert a random selector.
Piss off the question writers by allowing the contestants to change all the categories at any point during the game.
Someone will make the "Press Select for New Categories" joke within three posts.
-
I still have Talking Super Jeopardy in my box of dust farms.
-
Let's piss everyone off and insert a random selector.
Piss off the question writers by allowing the contestants to change all the categories at any point during the game.
Someone will make the "Press Select for New Categories" joke within three posts.
You jest, but giving each player one opportunity a game to nuke one category would not be the worst idea I've ever heard. If nothing else, it's a mechanic that could be well used on another show.
-
The incredibly easy fix, to the degree that this is actually a "problem", is simply to make it a rule that they have to play categories top to bottom.
I made that suggest to Jennings at a taping in August last year. He scoffed at the notion.