-
Hello everyone,
It sure is great to have both versions of BB on again. I love being able to see the Rafferty version after not having seen it since 1997, when it was on at 12:30 CST...:)
Watching the Cullen version, though, that got me thinking about the game structure. Many swear by the whole "two vs. one" premise of the show being the best, but I really like the one-on-one version, especially since one person gets the advantage over the other in the first two rounds, really bringing out the true game player in the one who doesn't get the advantage. And, if it hasn't come out then, it'll certainly come out in that evenly-matched tie-breaker round! I think it brings a little something extra to the game when you see whether players can overcome a disadvantage and still come out the winner, and that's why I like the fact that the first two rounds are played that way.
The "two vs. one" premise is a fun experiment, sure, but I think it gets old after a while. It seemed like, unless you played the game like John Hatten or close to that, you probably wouldn't win as a solo player. The advantage that the solo player had vs. the family pair was quite small considering the pair had an extra chance to buzz-in first since there were two buzzers working for them.
So, as a result, I have a few questions for you:
1. NOT considering anything extraneous like the hosts, prize money, quality of contestants, etc., which version of BB do you think had the better game format: the "two vs. one" format or the one-on-one format and why?
2. Do you think the one-on-one format would be better if every game was played with an even board like the tiebreaker?
I'm interested in seeing what you guys think...:)
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 05:48 PM\']1. NOT considering anything extraneous like the hosts, prize money, quality of contestants, etc., which version of BB do you think had the better game format: the "two vs. one" format or the one-on-one format and why?
[/quote]
The two-on-one, easily. The entire PREMISE of the show was to determine "whether two heads are really better than one." Throwing that completely out the window was one of several very bad jokes on the Rafferty show.
Do you think the one-on-one format would be better if every game was played with an even board like the tiebreaker?
An even 4x4 board? Too small. Fine for the third game tiebreak, but otherwise, no.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 07:54 PM\'][quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 05:48 PM\']1. NOT considering anything extraneous like the hosts, prize money, quality of contestants, etc., which version of BB do you think had the better game format: the "two vs. one" format or the one-on-one format and why?
[/quote]
The two-on-one, easily. The entire PREMISE of the show was to determine "whether two heads are really better than one." Throwing that completely out the window was one of several very bad jokes on the Rafferty show.
Do you think the one-on-one format would be better if every game was played with an even board like the tiebreaker?
An even 4x4 board? Too small. Fine for the third game tiebreak, but otherwise, no.
[snapback]90684[/snapback]
[/quote]
I too preferred the 2 vs 1 format. It made the show unique. And while this may be deemed "extraneous", I felt the writing was far superior in the Cullen version. I can certainly understand and respect the argument that the original author had however, with the advantage going to one player in game #1, and then going to the other player in game #2.
Regards,
Bill McD.
-
1. Two-v.-one. Easy. I wonder if someone said "How could we do a show where two people compete against one", and Steve Ryan tweaked the Hex board in that way. Rather than the other way around.
2. The one-on-one format really should be done on a 'fair' board, but 16 cells doesn't allow for much movement/strategy. I would propose a 25 hex board, maybe in a rhombus shape (if it would fit on the screen). Big enough that you can get some good games, and still not all the letters are used.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 09:50 PM\']I would propose a 25 hex board, maybe in a rhombus shape (if it would fit on the screen). Big enough that you can get some good games, and still not all the letters are used.
[/quote]
You'd be stuck with a two of Q, X, and Z in every game. You'd run out of clues fast.
(I'd thought of that too.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 11:54 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 09:50 PM\']I would propose a 25 hex board, maybe in a rhombus shape (if it would fit on the screen). Big enough that you can get some good games, and still not all the letters are used.
[/quote]
You'd be stuck with a two of Q, X, and Z in every game. You'd run out of clues fast.
[snapback]90705[/snapback]
[/quote]
One way to cut down on the number of letters would be to create a "wild" block that could work for either player and didn't have to be earned. If I was making a decision like that, I'd been torn between placing it randomly and always putting it dead-center on a 5x5 board.
Another idea would be to repeat the letter used for the first question (since it's off the board by the time a player makes their first move) elsewhere on the board, but I admit that could get confusing.
One thing that rather confused me about Rafferty Blockbusters that confused me at first was that the directions the players were moving changed at the end of each round, but it actually deals with an issue that Cullen's version didn't: the player making a vertical connection, in addition to the numerical advantage, has an advantage in that each block three blocks that can work to advance them towards their own edge (straight up or down as well as up/down and to one side), while the player moving horizontally only has the two "diagonal" moves.
-
1. I like the 2 vs. 1 format just for its uniqueness factor. Sure they have the advantage in most cases but I've seen some single players exploit that to a certain degree. Thus, the premise that "2 heads better than 1" mentallity is only good if the family pair uses it to their advantage.
2. As far as the 1-on-1 goes, I'd start with a 5x5 grid with the Wild Card to replace a letter on the board. It may not always work, but it can be useful in creating somewhat a random pattern as to where the Wild "letter" card goes. In the 2nd game, whoever wins the 1st game has the advantage thus a 5x4 grid is used(the 4 goes to the winner of the 1st game). The tie-breaker is the 4x4 scenerio. That's how I deal with the 1-on-1 format.
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Jul 2 2005, 06:48 PM\']1. NOT considering anything extraneous like the hosts, prize money, quality of contestants, etc., which version of BB do you think had the better game format: the "two vs. one" format or the one-on-one format and why?
2. Do you think the one-on-one format would be better if every game was played with an even board like the tiebreaker?
[snapback]90681[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've always assumed that the creative process was the opposite of what Travis described: They found that 4x4 was too small to be interesting, while 5x5 would take too long and require the "rare" letters to be used too often. So, they settled on 4x5 and needed a way to even things up. They could have gone to the 4x4, or they could have stipulated that players continue alternating red and white for their entire run, but they found that the 2v1 format made for a more entertaining show.
1. I like the 2v1 format better because of the entertainment value. (It also allowed them to have players under 18 from time to time without having to do a special week.)
2. No, I think the games would go too quickly.
-
I like the two vs. one premise.
However I like the set, colors & graphics of the remake over the original.
-
Perhaps Mrs. GameShow could enlighten us as to the creative process behind this game?
-
Bill once said that they got far more single contestants than family pairs. I suspect this was one of the reasons they changed it for the 1987 revival. Also, one of the limitations of the 1980 version was that they didn't have the CG board they did for 1987.
-
Best reason not to like the '87 version, in 2 words: Mary Ellen.
Now my real opinion: the "2 heads" strategy was a novel idea, and it was neat to see single players (not playas) win against a family pair and prove the old adage wrong. The game did lose a little something in entertainment value when it went head-to-head, plus it made the 4x5 board less necessary.
One thing they could've done differently in '87 was to make the Gold Run 30 seconds instead of :60. Cullen's laid-back style almost made the full minute a must. Rafferty and his players, on the other hand, could have done just fine with half the time.
-
[quote name=\'mystery7\' date=\'Jul 4 2005, 02:07 PM\']One thing they could've done differently in '87 was to make the Gold Run 30 seconds instead of :60. Cullen's laid-back style almost made the full minute a must. Rafferty and his players, on the other hand, could have done just fine with half the time.
[/quote]
...except for that annoying (though technologically necessary, I grant) pause while the computers loaded up the question into Bill's podium monitor.
-
[quote name=\'mystery7\' date=\'Jul 4 2005, 04:07 PM\']One thing they could've done differently in '87 was to make the Gold Run 30 seconds instead of :60. Cullen's laid-back style almost made the full minute a must. Rafferty and his players, on the other hand, could have done just fine with half the time.[/quote]
A good player would normally get the first five to win the Gold Run on BillC's version in about 20-22 seconds. I still stand by :45 being a better time for that version--it looked silly to me when a player had completely blocked their path, but still had time to answer two more questions.
30 seconds would be pretty brutal, IMO. Even if you can average 4 seconds per hex, one wrong answer has you winning by the skin of your teeth, and two probably means a loss.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jul 4 2005, 04:32 PM\']30 seconds would be pretty brutal, IMO. Even if you can average 4 seconds per hex, one wrong answer has you winning by the skin of your teeth, and two probably means a loss.
[snapback]90761[/snapback]
[/quote]
Perhaps they could've set the time Classic Concentration-style. Start it at :30 (I know--CC began it at :35) and increase it by ten seconds (I know--it was five on CC) until you nail it. Then, reset the timer to thirty if the player wins again.
To answer the original question, the 1980-82 Blockbusters was my preference as far as main game play. I just didn't and don't get the 5x4 board for a 1x1 player format. Why make the contestant number even but the game board uneven?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Jul 4 2005, 05:24 PM\']Perhaps they could've set the time Classic Concentration-style. Start it at :30 (I know--CC began it at :35) and increase it by ten seconds (I know--it was five on CC) until you nail it. Then, reset the timer to thirty if the player wins again.
[snapback]90764[/snapback]
[/quote]
This is what the German version of BB (Super Grips) did, although if memory serves, the students retired as champions once they won the equivalent of the Gold Run. They also only got prizes instead of cash -- but then again, it was high-school students playing.
-
I too thought the 2-vs-1 was what gave the show its niche. It worked better for me.
On the Rafferty version. I tolerated the 5x4 alignment. What might have been interesting is giving the champion the option of having the advantage in Game 1 or 2, then having the 4x4 in Game 3.
-
[quote name=\'mystery7\' date=\'Jul 4 2005, 04:07 PM\']
One thing they could've done differently in '87 was to make the Gold Run 30 seconds instead of :60. Cullen's laid-back style almost made the full minute a must. Rafferty and his players, on the other hand, could have done just fine with half the time.
[snapback]90757[/snapback]
[/quote]
Cullen managed to get as many 10 or 11 questions in the 60 seconds, assuming a contestant didn't agonize too long on a question they didn't know before passing. Rafferty usually gets about 9, partly due to the second lag while the question is coming up on the monitor, and I think he reads a little slower and bobbles more often. Maybe they could have done it untimed, like the 1978 J! bonus round, where taking too long or missing a question got a strike, and three strikes ended the round.
-
It seems to me that on the last show of the original version, among the statistics that Bill read off was that they found out that it was more or less equal in solo players/family pairs in terms of number of wins.
However, I will vouch for the fact that when I tried out for the show in Chicago in early 1982, the solo players vastly outnumbered the family pairs who were at the session I attended. If the contestant bookers were trying to get a quota of family pairs while in Chicago, they might've been very frustrated, unless they were only hoping to maybe get one family pair.
-
Would it have thrown the show off-kilter if they had considered husband-and-wife pairs?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 5 2005, 01:59 PM\']Would it have thrown the show off-kilter if they had considered husband-and-wife pairs?
[snapback]90804[/snapback]
[/quote]
One would suspect that Goodson didn't want a show with married couples, since that had been done and done and done.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jul 5 2005, 03:06 PM\']One would suspect that Goodson didn't want a show with married couples, since that had been done and done and done.
[snapback]90806[/snapback]
[/quote]
True, but wasn't the original plans for Card Sharks '86 was to have couples? Which is supposedly why Bob Eubanks was brought on in the first place.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Jul 5 2005, 06:10 PM\']True, but wasn't the original plans for Card Sharks '86 was to have couples? Which is supposedly why Bob Eubanks was brought on in the first place.
[/quote]
Great idea. I can see the arguing couples now. Of course, Eubanks is the perfect guy to muck things up...and make it a travesty.
-
Except that Couples Card Sharks has been on the air for damn near forever in the form of "Play Your Cards Right." That doesn't mean I like the idea, nor would I want to see it, but it does work. And Bob would be the right guy to do it.
As to something I brought up earlier, what I was wondering was which came first in the idea process: the hex grid or the two-on-one format?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 01:24 AM\']Except that Couples Card Sharks has been on the air for damn near forever in the form of "Play Your Cards Right." That doesn't mean I like the idea, nor would I want to see it, but it does work. And Bob would be the right guy to do it.
[snapback]90858[/snapback]
[/quote]
IIRC, wasn't that the whole reason of doing a couples format...to make the show more based on Play Your Cards Right, including the car format?
-
I think the hex board was derived before the 2-on-1 format was established.
Speaking of the hex board, if a 4x4 board was laid out, it'll never look even although the dimensions might create a square. That's because 2 paralell sets of adjacent sides that create the illusion of a triangle that basically bisects the hex on the left & right, thus creating an akward looking square arrangement. In fact, whether it's 4x4, 5x4 or even 5x5, the setup won't have an even look to the board.
-
If it was too hard to find family pairs, why didn't they allow pairs of friends? (I imagine there's some sort of reason.)
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 10:35 AM\']If it was too hard to find family pairs, why didn't they allow pairs of friends? (I imagine there's some sort of reason.)[/quote]
One possible explanation, it would seem, is that allowing any two people who are really good at the game to team up would tend to dominate the game, and not leave a solo player with a shot in hell. That said, if the show ever came back, there are a couple of potential teammates who'd have me seriously considering marrying one of their sisters. :)
But somehow, I think I might be in the minority on that one.... ;)
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 04:22 AM\']I think the hex board was derived before the 2-on-1 format was established.
[snapback]90860[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'm gonna take a wild stab and say you have no evidence to back that claim up.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 05:04 PM\']I'm gonna take a wild stab and say you have no evidence to back that claim up.
[snapback]90909[/snapback]
[/quote]
The key words in that post are:
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 04:22 AM\']I think[/quote]... which, according to some of our "crumedegons", is a contradiction in terms.
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jul 6 2005, 01:24 AM\']Except that Couples Card Sharks has been on the air for damn near forever in the form of "Play Your Cards Right." That doesn't mean I like the idea, nor would I want to see it, but it does work. And Bob would be the right guy to do it.
As to something I brought up earlier, what I was wondering was which came first in the idea process: the hex grid or the two-on-one format?[/quote]This is pure unadultered speculation, and unlike certain others I'm not afraid to admit it. But Travis's first paragraph might explain why they phrase "play your cards right" was used so predominantly on the '80s versions while never used on the '78-81 version. Maybe someone at MGP considered renaming it Play Your Cards Right, since it wouldn't have been the first time a Goodson show was revived under a completely different title.
As for the second paragraph, unless anyone here keeps in touch with Steve Ryan on a regular basis, we'll never know.
-
Another consideration (and one might say handicap) with the family pair is that when you are part of a pair you have to gauge when or if it would be best to make a guess to beat out the solo player. You sort of have to determine if your partner would be better able to answer a question plus buzz in before your opponent.
If anybody kept stats, did generational pairs (mother/son) do better than siblings?
-
unless anyone here keeps in touch with Steve Ryan on a regular basis, we'll never know.
Or anyone else who was there at the time.