The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Don Howard on May 02, 2004, 12:45:28 PM
-
On this rainy Sunday morning, I played a little catch-up with some of the stash in my VHS collection and landed on a Password Plus episode from 1979 featuring Patty Duke Astin and John Astin. In the Alphabetics round, Patty accidentally saw the word LUGGAGE and pulled a Jack Paar (she gave LUGGAGE as the clue). As Patty groaned over what she'd done, Allen from the sidelines beckoned the contestant to "Say it! Say the word!!". She then went on to solve the rest of the ten and received $4000. Now then. With time running out, what's to stop a celeb from seeing MATTRESS and giving the following clues: "Mattress....say....mattress....say.....mattress" so that the player gets $4000 instead of $900? At least this was rectified when during "The End Game", upon the arrival of Super Password, illegal clues meant no jackpot.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:45 AM\'] MATTRESS and giving the following clues: "Mattress....say....mattress....say.....mattress" so that the player gets $4000 instead of $900? At least this was rectified when during "The End Game", upon the arrival of Super Password, illegal clues meant no jackpot. [/quote]
Nothing is stopping them at all.
Now that you mention this, I think it'd be appropriate to discuss other games that have actual flaws. I'm not talking about a set not being the right color; or a show that should give out $1,000,000 instead of $10,000.
This is one that sticks out. Another is "Get The Picture's" speed round...in which a team could repeatedly hit the buzzer, without penalty. On an episode I saw the other day, one team buzzed in 9 times, with wrong answers...before getting it correct..the other team never got a chance.
-
Okay I guess I'll start. This doesn't bother me, but I know some don't like it, in that on Price, a contestant is allowed to one up another contestant's bid during a one bid.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:53 AM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:45 AM\'] MATTRESS and giving the following clues: "Mattress....say....mattress....say.....mattress" so that the player gets $4000 instead of $900? At least this was rectified when during "The End Game", upon the arrival of Super Password, illegal clues meant no jackpot. [/quote]
[/quote]
I had to ask it...wouldn't it mean $2000 (cause, you see, he/she's saying "Mattress" three times...)
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 2 2004, 12:32 PM\'] Okay I guess I'll start. This doesn't bother me, but I know some don't like it, in that on Price, a contestant is allowed to one up another contestant's bid during a one bid. [/quote]
I really don't see what's wrong in doing this. It's just the right strategy, and I'm sure you'd do it also if the opportunity was there and it was necessary.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 2 2004, 01:32 PM\'] Okay I guess I'll start. This doesn't bother me, but I know some don't like it, in that on Price, a contestant is allowed to one up another contestant's bid during a one bid. [/quote]
I, too, agree with JayC...I dont' think this is a flaw, this is strategy. To me that's like saying WoF has a flaw if the puzzle is, let's say "DUKE OF EARL", and a contestant prefaces it with "The" when he tries to solve the puzzle, loses his turn, and next player down the line, who had no idea, solves it correctly without adding "The".
Now, you want to talk flaw? Here's one that always bugged me, but they corrected (I don't know when, but I'm sure someone will).
1986HS - Games are worth $500 each - a player jumps out to a $1000 lead, it's VERY hard for other player to come back and tie, as very rarely (if ever?) are four complete games played. This was later rectified by making the third game $1000, as well.
-
From a different Password+ episode, the word "Quicksand" came up during the Alphabetics round, and it was mentioned after the round had ended that the celeb could have said "Sand" or "Quick" as legal clues.
I believe that parts of the word were illegal clues on the original run of Password, but this rule was inexplicably removed for the first NBC revival.
So the celeb COULD recite "Say...Quick...Sand...Say...Quick...Sand..."
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:45 AM\'] On this rainy Sunday morning, I played a little catch-up with some the stash in my VHS collection and landed on a Password Plus episode from 1979 featuring Patty Duke Astin and John Astin. In the Alphabetics round, Patty accidentally saw the word LUGGAGE and pulled a Jack Paar (she gave LUGGAGE as the clue). As Patty groaned over what she'd done, Allen from the sidelines beckoned the contestant to "Say it! Say the word!!". She then went on to solve the rest of the ten and received $4000. Now then. With time running out, what's to stop a celeb from seeing MATTRESS and giving the following clues: "Mattress....say....mattress....say.....mattress" so that the player gets $4000 instead of $900? At least this was rectified when during "The End Game", upon the arrival of Super Password, illegal clues meant no jackpot. [/quote]
I personally didn't understand why more celebs didn't just do this in the first place.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:53 AM\']This is one that sticks out. Another is "Get The Picture's" speed round...in which a team could repeatedly hit the buzzer, without penalty. On an episode I saw the other day, one team buzzed in 9 times, with wrong answers...before getting it correct..the other team never got a chance.[/quote]
Talking about Nick shows with major flaws immediately brings to mind Finders Keepers. I recall a couple of occasions where a team swept all four hidden pictures, but then they could only find the hidden object in one of the four rooms they searched. The result? Score becomes 150-150, the other team ties the game without doing a damn thing. I've heard some argue that searching the rooms is more important than finding hidden pictures; this is true, but I don't see the justification in awarding a team that searched nothing.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'May 2 2004, 02:11 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:45 AM\'] On this rainy Sunday morning, I played a little catch-up with some the stash in my VHS collection and landed on a Password Plus episode from 1979 featuring Patty Duke Astin and John Astin. In the Alphabetics round, Patty accidentally saw the word LUGGAGE and pulled a Jack Paar (she gave LUGGAGE as the clue). As Patty groaned over what she'd done, Allen from the sidelines beckoned the contestant to "Say it! Say the word!!". She then went on to solve the rest of the ten and received $4000. Now then. With time running out, what's to stop a celeb from seeing MATTRESS and giving the following clues: "Mattress....say....mattress....say.....mattress" so that the player gets $4000 instead of $900? At least this was rectified when during "The End Game", upon the arrival of Super Password, illegal clues meant no jackpot. [/quote]
I personally didn't understand why more celebs didn't just do this in the first place.
Brandon [/quote]
Maybe they enjoyed the game and wanted to be booked for a future week? Wasn't the jackpot reduced by a grand everytime something like that happened? To get any money you'd still have to get six the right way.
-
Maybe they enjoyed the game and wanted to be booked for a future week? Wasn't the jackpot reduced by a grand everytime something like that happened? To get any money you'd still have to get six the right way.
Not only that, but the contestant would also have to be in on the strategy in order for it to work effectively.
Word: Mattress
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Mumble"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Contestant: "Ummm...clue?"
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Pass it"
Also, if the contestant is not in on it, they might be pretty peeved if the celeb tried to take the easy way out (at a cost of $1000) instead of trying for the word.
-
Didn't they change this rule on P+ after Tom Kennedy came on? (Or shortly before TK came onboard?) I recall there was something to the effect that the rule was changed to eliminate any chance at the Alphabetics Jackpot for an illegal clue to stop just what you're talking about.
-
Didn't they change this rule on P+ after Tom Kennedy came on? (Or shortly before TK came onboard?) I recall there was something to the effect that the rule was changed to eliminate any chance at the Alphabetics Jackpot for an illegal clue to stop just what you're talking about.
No; in fact, the flaw was actually WORSENED when they switched to the increasing jackpot format ($5,000 plus $5,000 each day not won); when this occurred, the rule was that each illegal clue docked 10% from the potential jackpot, so illegal clues at the $5,000 level now only cost $500 instead of the $1,000 it did before!
No rule changes to prevent a jackpot win on NBC Password were put in place until SP, which, IMO, was the way it should've been done in the first place. Why did they decide to conduct the bonus round the way they did on P+?
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'May 2 2004, 01:58 PM\']
1986HS - Games are worth $500 each - a player jumps out to a $1000 lead, it's VERY hard for other player to come back and tie, as very rarely (if ever?) are four complete games played. This was later rectified by making the third game $1000, as well. [/quote]
They almost never got to four complete games in one show of Davidson HS, unlike the Marshall Syndie HS. The Marshall Syndie version used a similar cash per game structure to the 1986-87 Davidson HS season, except the monies were half what they were in 1986. If a contestant had a $750-$0 lead on Marshall HS, there wouldn't be much chance to catch up, as Marshall Squares rarely completed more than five games, regardless of how fast Peter usually kept things moving.
The Davidson HS "third and subsequent games worth $1000" rule debuted on the next to last week of the first season IIRC.
-
Wasn't it 20%, rather than 10? It was no difference in either TK or AL who hosted, it was still a 20% deduction in that jackpot for an illegal clue.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'May 2 2004, 05:52 PM\'] Didn't they change this rule on P+ after Tom Kennedy came on? (Or shortly before TK came onboard?) I recall there was something to the effect that the rule was changed to eliminate any chance at the Alphabetics Jackpot for an illegal clue to stop just what you're talking about. [/quote]
When the Kennedy P+ went to the progressive Alphabetics jackpot, an illegal clue cost the player 20 percent of the potential jackpot. The finale had a $12K win when the jackpot was worth $20K because Tom POston gave two illegal clues.
-
Wasn't it 20%, rather than 10? It was no difference in either TK or AL who hosted, it was still a 20% deduction in that jackpot for an illegal clue.
Whoops! I stand corrected; yes, it was 20%, as Zach and others had stated.
I don't know where I got my 10% from; perhaps I was doing some bad math today!
Anthony
-
Here's one I remembered, from 100k Pyramid. The fact that if you passed a word in the main game, you couldn't go back to it.
Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.
While I'm on the subject of the Feud, a flaw of the new version through season 4, was the fact that there was 3 single questions, and then a triple question where you could only have 1 strike. I've seen episodes where one team had so much points, that if a family failed to get more then the other team had, then they automatically lost the game. Also, the rule that began on Bullseye era Combs episodes, where a if a family tried to steal a bank and succeeded, whatever amount of points the answer revealed was worth, sometimes doubled or tripled when neccessary, would be added to the bank. That was definitely unfair. About that BTW, something I've always wondered, was if Dawson's return in 94 kept that rule or not. Anyone know? I'm really glad that Karn's version has brought the show back to its roots, with the classic gameplay. My only complaint is that, they don't play for money in the main game. Other then that, everything is back to way it used to be in terms of gameplay, with the exception of a 1 answer 5th question tiebreak.
-
P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus. In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless. The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one. The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money. (To use a simple illustration, say it's at $5,000 your first time, and you win two games. If you win both rounds, you have $10,000. If you get one out of ten the first time and 10/10 the second, you have $100 for the first round and $10,000 for the second, totaling $10,100.)
Body Language: The first two rounds had no bearing on the outcome of the game. (My suggestion: $50 bonus for getting all five words in your first turn. Then getting your $100 puzzle, your opponent's $100 puzzle and one $250 puzzle ends the game.)
$50,000 Pyramid: The way to qualify for the tournament is getting 7/7 in the fastest time for that week. However, if your opponent does so poorly that you only need 6 to win the game (and play for a piddling $5,000 compared to previous incarnations), you get one less opportunity to beat the time.
Double Talk: If the two players each won a single game, the player who won more money for the day returned, à la the contemporary Pyramid shows. However, bonus money from the main game counted. The bonus money came by solving an extra puzzle for $1,000 after getting 4 of 4 in your turn, and if you didn't need all 4 to win, you didn't get the shot at the $1,000. So, if you won the first game with a perfect score and all bonuses, then won the bonus round, all you had to do to ensure your return the next day is miss two puzzles. (I'm fairly certain one show worked out that way, though I wouldn't think it was intentional.)
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 2 2004, 07:13 PM\'] Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.
[/quote]
Didn't that change subsequently? I do recall seeing episodes where Dawson did go back if time remained (perhaps from much later in the run), but perhaps my mind is playing games with me again (wouldn't be the first time).
Doug
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'May 2 2004, 10:44 PM\'] P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus. In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless. The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one. The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money. (To use a simple illustration, say it's at $5,000 your first time, and you win two games. If you win both rounds, you have $10,000. If you get one out of ten the first time and 10/10 the second, you have $100 for the first round and $10,000 for the second, totaling $10,100.) [/quote]
Well, not all of P+. At least for the first couple of years, the $100 puzzles *did* have some bearing on the outcome.
Doug
-
Classic Concentraiton Flaw:
In the first season. Solving the puzzle ment immediate bye-bye for the loser but if you were in a game and time ran out and had to go into "Speedround" then whoever solved the puzzle, the one who didn't gets to come back.
Seems REALLY unfair to the unlucky sap who got put on the show in the first half (It made sense when they went to the "Two Strikes" rule)
Of course, you can say the major flaw in "CC" was indecision of a elimation format
-Joe R.
-
P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus. In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless. The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one. The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money.
True - if you managed to get to the end game the second time. (There was a recent thread about a Classic Concentration player who got all of the matches but one in the end game in about 27 seconds - and then stopped guessing because he wanted to win more prizes in the head-to-head game; I don't think he got back to the end game a second time.) By that logic, the entire concept of The $20,000 Pyramid is bad (you have to lose twice at the winner's circle in order to have a chance at the $20,000).
$50,000 Pyramid: The way to qualify for the tournament is getting 7/7 in the fastest time for that week. However, if your opponent does so poorly that you only need 6 to win the game (and play for a piddling $5,000 compared to previous incarnations), you get one less opportunity to beat the time.
I thought the sixth category was played through, unless they gave an illegal clue, regardless of the score (like how they handle "Mystery 7" in other versions if it comes up at the end of the game), except that they may have stopped if the time needed to be the "Person of the Week" was passed.
-- Don
-
the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game
In the 100-yard dash, the first 99 yards have no bearing on the outcome.
Think about it.
-
Word: Mattress
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Mumble"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Contestant: "Ummm...clue?"
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Pass it"
More like:
Password: "MATTRESS"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont: "Speak"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Cont (CONFUSED): "Bed"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont (SERIOUSLY CONFUSED): "When"
etc.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:14 PM\']
the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game
In the 100-yard dash, the first 99 yards have no bearing on the outcome.
Think about it. [/quote]
He must have been referring to Super Password, where the lone $100 puzzle indeed had no effect on which contestent ended up winning the game (except for the fact that the player who got said puzzle didn't get to start the next). At least in the 100-yard dash, whoever's in the lead after the first 99 yards has a significant advantage over his opponent, which was not at all the case after the first puzzle on SP.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:18 PM\']
Word: Mattress
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Mumble"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Contestant: "Ummm...clue?"
Celeb: "Say"
Contestant: "Pass it"
More like:
Password: "MATTRESS"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont: "Speak"
Celeb: "Mattress"
Cont (CONFUSED): "Bed"
Celeb: "Say"
Cont (SERIOUSLY CONFUSED): "When"
etc. [/quote]
Or, if the contestant and celebrity were both good (and the celeb could do a bit of acting):
Allen: "M!"
Celeb: "Mattress"
(beep beep beep beep)
Celeb [with disgusted look]: "OH, SHOOT!"
Contestant: "Mattress!!!"
(Music plays; contestant and celeb hug)
Allen: "One illegal clue, so we reduce your total winnings by $1000, but with the money you won in the game, you have $4400. Let's go play another game."
-
1986HS - Games are worth $500 each - a player jumps out to a $1000 lead, it's VERY hard for other player to come back and tie, as very rarely (if ever?) are four complete games played. This was later rectified by making the third game $1000, as well.
That always bugged me as well. A contestant could do well for the first two games, miss a question in the third game and end up losing the match. If they wanted to make it possible for a contestant to come back at the end, they should have done something like this:
$500 for the first game
$750 for the second
$1000 for the third, etc.
That would have make it more fair.
-
Here's one I remembered, from 100k Pyramid. The fact that if you passed a word in the main game, you couldn't go back to it.
I'll take this one. I really don't see that as a flaw of the game, maybe an inconvenience, but that's just the way the game works.
During today's run of Pyramid you can come back if there is time, they just have the extra "Have to say the word before you say pass to receive credit" rule stuck in there to... Well I really don't know why, now that I think of it.
Also, this wasn't really a flaw from the game itself, but a flaw within Richard Dawson. I noticed often if a contestant passed on a question in fast money on Family Feud, Dawson wouldn't go back to it if the contestant still had time at the end.
*crickets chirping, looks for Zach, no sign of him*
Dawson didn't have the choice whether or not he went back to a passed question with a contestant. Wouldn't that be a little unfair? How would you feel if based on whether or not that burrito he had at lunch was sitting right with him was whether or not he decided to go back to a question you passed in Fast Money? During the early years of Dawson's run, a contestant saying "Pass" would basically forfeit the question and earn them 0 points. This wasn't made obvious, but wasn't really discouraged either. Later on, the classic "If you can't think of something, say pass and I'll come back to it if there's time" schpiel was added. It's been that way ever since. Why am I...surprised you...didn't know that?
-snip- My only complaint is that, they don't play for money in the main game. Other then that, everything is back to way it used to be in terms of gameplay, with the exception of a 1 answer 5th question tiebreak.
Wow, you really are a Feud freak. No offense, not saying there's anything wrong with it.. *stops digging his hole deeper*
Really, I think that last comment you made translates to a "flaw" in itself. I really hate the new method of "tie-breaking" on the Feud - when there really is no "tie" per se, it just means that neither family got to 300 in that standard-repetitive-uniform-unchanging allotted time per question (*shudders*) in the earlier rounds. Putting a survey on the board with 1 answer brings the entire game down to a faceoff. A twisted "Sudden Death" version of Bullseye, if you will. I really find it anticlimactic, and leaves a feeling that I just waisted 20 minutes watching the front game.
-
True, but you must remember, that in this day and age, there's really not time for a full 5th question
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:29 PM\'] True, but you must remember, that in this day and age, there's really not time for a full 5th question [/quote]
If the format doesn't fit in the alloted time, then maybe there is a problem with the format.
If you brought me a new proposal that didn't work in the alloted time, I would tell you so and suggest you rework it such that it did.
If doing so made the proposal suck, then I would pass and look for something else.
The time constraints of this format are right on the border of making this show suck.
-
Getting back to Alphabetics, the very fact that the celebrity could give as many one-word clues as necessary, as long as he paused briefly between them, always seemed to me to defeat the purpose of requiring single-word clues. By stringing together as many clues as necessary, a clue-giver could essentially state a whole sentence description of the word without penalty. Yes, I recognize there are time constraints to doing this sort of thing, but it still seems like it's not quite within the original concept (although I guess it was really no different back in the Lightning Round days, so maybe not).
Here's an idea which might help to reduce the possibility of exceptionally long clues: How about doubling the jackpot if a player can guess all the words with only one clue per word? Alternatively, how about reducing the jackpot if more than, say, three clues are needed for a player to guess a word?
-
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:35 PM\'] Here's an idea which might help to reduce the possibility of exceptionally long clues: How about doubling the jackpot if a player can guess all the words with only one clue per word? Alternatively, how about reducing the jackpot if more than, say, three clues are needed for a player to guess a word? [/quote]
There is no way the average viewer at home would be able to keep track of this or have an idea of what happened when the conditions are satisfied.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 3 2004, 08:39 PM\'][quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:35 PM\'] Here's an idea which might help to reduce the possibility of exceptionally long clues: How about doubling the jackpot if a player can guess all the words with only one clue per word? Alternatively, how about reducing the jackpot if more than, say, three clues are needed for a player to guess a word? [/quote]
There is no way the average viewer at home would be able to keep track of this or have an idea of what happened when the conditions are satisfied.[/quote]
I definitely considered that in the latter scenario and would probably reject it for that very reason. On the other hand, I think the former (every word guessed with one clue) could be understood well enough and followed fairly easily with a simple on-screen indicator.
-
[quote name=\'CJBojangles\' date=\'May 3 2004, 05:55 PM\']
Here's one I remembered, from 100k Pyramid. The fact that if you passed a word in the main game, you couldn't go back to it.
I'll take this one. I really don't see that as a flaw of the game, maybe an inconvenience, but that's just the way the game works.
During today's run of Pyramid you can come back if there is time, they just have the extra "Have to say the word before you say pass to receive credit" rule stuck in there to... Well I really don't know why, now that I think of it.[/quote]
I've thought about this one quite a bit, and the conclusion I came to is that both cases are matters of making the game fit the technology instead of vice versa.
In the '70s and '80s, they loaded in all of the words ahead of time, in order, so it was difficult to go back and display, say, the fourth word after that last one had been gotten. However, it was no problem to add another point to the score when a team threw a word back in after a pass, hence the '70s and '80s rules.
On the current version, of course, it's all done by computer, and they can very easily push one button when a team gets a word, taking it out of the mix, and another when they pass, keeping it in and revealing it again after all have been seen once. However, they apparently found it too difficult to provide for another button to prevent a previously-passed word from reappearing in case of a throwback. So, they just act as if the throwback never happened. This one was definitely more easily preventable, but that's just one more example of the lack of attention to detail on the Osmond show.
-
First off, yes, I meant Super Password, not P+.
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'May 2 2004, 11:40 PM\'] P+ had a flaw in the maingame and one in the bonus. In the maingame, the $100 puzzle had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The problem in the bonus wasn't as bad as the old version, but it was a flaw nonetheless. The jackpot started at $5,000 and went up $5,000 each time it wasn't one. The effect was that you would end up with less money by winning every round than if you won your last one and lost every round before that, with some money.
True - if you managed to get to the end game the second time. (There was a recent thread about a Classic Concentration player who got all of the matches but one in the end game in about 27 seconds - and then stopped guessing because he wanted to win more prizes in the head-to-head game; I don't think he got back to the end game a second time.) By that logic, the entire concept of The $20,000 Pyramid is bad (you have to lose twice at the winner's circle in order to have a chance at the $20,000).[/quote]
Yes, as a matter of fact, it was a bad concept, even worse than the one in my OP. It's the one thing I always hated about the prize structure.
$50,000 Pyramid: The way to qualify for the tournament is getting 7/7 in the fastest time for that week. However, if your opponent does so poorly that you only need 6 to win the game (and play for a piddling $5,000 compared to previous incarnations), you get one less opportunity to beat the time.
I thought the sixth category was played through, unless they gave an illegal clue, regardless of the score (like how they handle "Mystery 7" in other versions if it comes up at the end of the game), except that they may have stopped if the time needed to be the "Person of the Week" was passed.
-- Don
I just watched an ep a couple months ago. I'll backpedal a little: I don't remember whether they stopped when it was past the time to beat, but I definitely remember that they stopped.
-
I've noticed something on Wheel that seems to be unfair. For the prize puzzle, whatever the prize is, it's total is added to the person/teams total winnings. I don't think that should count for total winnings, since it was given to them, rather then them earning it. By that I mean, sure they solved the puzzle to win the prize that went with it, but they didn't actually land on a space with that prize on the wheel. What do you guys think?
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'May 7 2004, 07:12 PM\'] I've noticed something on Wheel that seems to be unfair. For the prize puzzle, whatever the prize is, it's total is added to the person/teams total winnings. I don't think that should count for total winnings, since it was given to them, rather then them earning it. By that I mean, sure they solved the puzzle to win the prize that went with it, but they didn't actually land on a space with that prize on the wheel. What do you guys think? [/quote]
I think it should be played either on every show or not at all, rather than just on some shows. That seems more unfair than the value of the prize being added to the player's score.
-
I've been watching every night of late, and to my knowledge each show has had one. One question, how is how often it is played unfair?
-
Of course, situations like this would actually have me propose that an illegal clue ends the bonus game on the spot.
-
No, they do win the prize.
You win the prize when you win the "Prize Puzzle". Just imagine it as an unremovable prize on the front of each player/team's score...
(Unremovable in that a Bankrupt doesn't get rid of it -- it's not actually in their "bank"...)
-
True. But it seems that all prize puzzles ever since they started this Wheel Watchers Spin ID contest, EVERY PRIZE is a trip of some kind while the home viewer whose ID # is displayed for him/her to claim within 24 hours after its airing. That bothers me. Don't they have prize puzzles that are non-trip related? GEEZ!
-
By my count, since they introduced prize puzzles in September, there have been... two of them that weren't trips. What's even more bothersome is most of the time the description is generic enough that it could be a trip to just about anywhere. I don't see why they even bother; I find it to be more of an annoyance when they do one now, especially when it sways the outcome of the game.
On top of that, Pat seems to often neglect to mention that it's a prize puzzle until the producer reminds him after the contestant's first spin. Don't they tell him ahead of time, or put something on the teleprompter or his card so he'll know?
-
That's probably Pat being the host and doing that to surprise the contestants more than anyone else...