The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: PYLW on July 02, 2007, 07:37:41 PM
-
So far, the show isn't that bad. I just question the difficulty. And the main game gets pretty bland and old after around the fifteen minute mark. I'd do horrible at this...I wonder how those who are good at these things thought about this show?
The bonus game is okay, I like the idea and concept of it. Roger Lodge is a good host, is at ease and seems to be having a good time.
I think the show is okay, but I wouldn't be able to sit through an hour of it five days a week.
Anyone else have thoughts?
-
I really like this show. I am one of those people who hates overly excited contestants, so this is a good show for me. It does get a little quiet too though. But Roger is a great host. 100 times better than Dylan Lane is, that is for sure. He knows how to keep the game going and also add in a few jokes once in a while.
So I like this show. It isn't appointment television, but I will watch it whenever I have time. If I had to grade it I would give it a 7/10.
-
[quote name=\'PYLW\' post=\'156552\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 06:37 PM\']
So far, the show isn't that bad. I just question the difficulty. And the main game gets pretty bland and old after around the fifteen minute mark. I'd do horrible at this...I wonder how those who are good at these things thought about this show?
The bonus game is okay, I like the idea and concept of it. Roger Lodge is a good host, is at ease and seems to be having a good time.
I think the show is okay, but I wouldn't be able to sit through an hour of it five days a week.
[/quote]
I hesitated to post my thoughts about the show 'cause I feared being seen as an illiterate doofus but I found the game to be just a bit too much on the tough side for me to enjoy it very much. Plus, unless you remain glued to the TV set, you definitely can't enjoy it 'cause you have no way to play along at all. And yes, the main game does get rather tedious very quickly. I'd rate the bonus round "okay" at best as well. And while I agree that Roger Lodge is a decent host, he must stop explaining how the clues relate to the answers after each correct answer given. I figure that if an explanation is needed, the writing simply isn't crisp enough. The clues and answers should almost always be obvious and self-explanatory once they are both revealed. Kinda like when a joke isn't funny if the teller has to explain to you why it is just so damned funny.
Sorry GSN but I turned it off halfway through Monday's second episode and have no plans to return to it. Guess I'm heading back to "HARDBALL" at 6PM central...:)
Jake
-
It's a little bland, but an ok show.
The second episode was better.
-
The game itself is okay, but it's too repetitive and gets boring fast. I didn't really like the bonus round. Solving a bunch of puzzles quickly just for a better chance of being able to solve another puzzle... I'd rather it was just another 5 in 60 speed round or something.
The set is too dark and millionaire-esque for my tastes. Some of it is okay though. Did the contestant backdrop and scoreboards (before the game started) remind anyone else of the Perry $otC podium?
The writing is by far the best part of the show. I was expecting the puzzles to mostly be random strings of letters, so it was nice to see a lot of them start out as phrases and groups of (sometimes related) words. Some of them were also clearly written with the intent of trying to trick the contestants into an obvious but wrong answer (like angel food cake).
-
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'156576\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 11:12 PM\']The set is too dark and millionaire-esque for my tastes.[/quote]Funny. I got a Jeopardy vibe. Especially that opening.
An hour of this may be a little too much, but it's definitely a B+ effort at least. Definitely worthy of the hype, though.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'156583\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 10:11 PM\']
An hour of this may be a little too much, but it's definitely a B+ effort at least. Definitely worthy of the hype, though.
[/quote]
It was the same thing over and over again. You're telling me they couldn't come up with gameplay any more creative than that?
The writing is pretty clever, but it will not be taking up permanent residence on my Tivo.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'156583\' date=\'Jul 3 2007, 01:11 AM\']
Funny. I got a Jeopardy vibe. Especially that opening.
[/quote]
I thought so too. The host podium reminded me of the one Jeopardy had before the switch to HD.
As for the game itself...I did like it, but it got repetitive fast. I wish they had found some way to add more variety to the rounds.
-
I kinda liked the show..... for 30 minutes. It got a bit tiring after an hour, and the repetitiveness of Roger Lodge having to explain the clues after the answer was given was a bit too much for me. My thoughts can be summed up in three words:
I. Miss. Lingo.
PS: Why not have one episode of Camouflage followed by one episode of Lingo? It seems like a logical idea, that way GSn doesn't cycle through all of their episodes quickly. Then again, this is GSn we are talking about here.
-
I don't have GSN...so I didn't see it. (It'll probably turn up in the Gigantic Thread of YouTube later.) One question for you that saw it....
Is it better or worse than Chain Reaction?
-
We enjoyed the show, although it is tough. Early on, I was distracted by the letters falling off the board enough that I wasn't concentrating on the puzzles.
We thought that it might help to spice up the game by eliminating the third-place player after round 2 and having the third round on the clock (2 to 3 minutes, maybe) with shorter clues. Three words is just too much. And maybe more double score games? Other special puzzles? We felt like the show needed a kick in the pants.
Also, even though the set is small, all involved missed the textbook article on how to frame a single person medium-shot on Roger Lodge...he always filled up too much of the screen, at least in the first episode of the night last night.
-
My wife and I sorta liked the show. We commented that Roger didn't have to explain the connection every single time the answer was revealed and the close up shots of him were getting old really fast. We liked the clues to the puzzles. We attempted to beat the contestants in answering the puzzles, but even we had to wait until near the end of the dropping of the letters to guess it. We only watched the first episode. We then watched the 3:30am TTTT that we DVR'ed from the night before.
-
I haven't seen the show yet but I was glad to read that Yahoo! and Daily Variety gave the show positive reviews. Has anybody noticed if Wink Martindale is given credit? When I met him in 1989 he was working on a similar show called Squeezit.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'156595\' date=\'Jul 3 2007, 08:27 AM\']
I don't have GSN...so I didn't see it. (It'll probably turn up in the Gigantic Thread of YouTube later.) One question for you that saw it....
Is it better or worse than Chain Reaction?
[/quote]
Definitely better, but I don't know if that's saying much.
I'd be inclined to agree with the other opinions--gets boring fast and way too smart (hard) for the room.
-
I watched both episodes tonight. The show is a bit slow-paced, but that's fine-since the contestants and set were rather subdued. It's kind of like an after-dinner 'digestive cookie' of entertainment. The run-on words were fun; sometimes I found myself trying to read them all but that distracted from the fact that letters were soon dropping. If they're going to be funny, I'd like a couple more seconds to get in on the joke.
I didn't find Roger Lodge to be that endearing a host. I agree with the aforementioned sentiment of each puzzle not needing the Dylan Lane'sque explanation.
There's a good play along factor-and if it is challenging, then well done to them! It shouldn't be that easy. It's testing an abstract skill most of us don't regularly use. Bravo! The only thing I found useful was to concentrate on the shortest set of letters first, as there were fewer possible words. But then I wondered if I was wasting time not trying to get the whole puzzle. A few times I'd come up with two of the three words and couldn't get the last word (hi Wink). But again, I don't *want* it to be that simple! If you don't have to think, what's the point in watching?
On the scoring... the first rounds are good practice but have very little impact on the final scoring. Heck, the minimum values in the second round were often close to the maximum in the first! It would also be nice if the score had some value... such as hundreds of points equalling bonus seconds a la "Whew!" for solving puzzles. Plus the champ's winnings had nothing to do with their performance in the front game... at least give 'em a dollar a point or something rather than forcing the payoff to be simply based on the bonus round. A TofC sometime with highest-scoring main game players could be really interesting.
Overall I enjoyed the show, but I doubt I'll make appointment viewing out of it. Of course I thought "That's The Question" was a good show and look how long it lasted.
-
What I've noticed is that the first episode of each doubleheader is an early-taped episode, while the second episode is a later-taped episode because of the graphical transition during a Double Camouflage. And call me crazy, but the better players are on the second episode each night. Don't ask me why.
-
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'156554\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 05:04 PM\']I really like this show. I am one of those people who hates overly excited contestants, so this is a good show for me.[/quote] I don't mind amped contestants, but it does need to be in the proper arena, and also not a caricature.
So I like this show. It isn't appointment television, but I will watch it whenever I have time. If I had to grade it I would give it a 7/10.
I'm curious, because a "7/10" with nothing to base it on doesn't help me all that much in judging what you think. (one man's 7 is average, another below average, and so on) How would you stack Camouflage against Lingo, Chain Reaction, That's the Question, or even the GSN Originals of old?
-
Well here is a list. This is the way I would stack them.
1. Lingo
2. That's The Question
3. Camouflage
4. I've Got a Secret
5. Russian Roulette
-
TLEberle, you addressed xavier45, but you've given me a good framework for my review.
The clever clues make it very much like Scrabble. In that respect, it's already better than Lingo, and I like Lingo.
The rules and the scoring are not very complicated, which puts it ahead of any of the shows you mentioned.
The most obvious comparison is to Chain Reaction. CR has a solid game but a lousy host and worse contestants. Lodge is okay and the contestants I saw were better than I'd expect to see from a pool of people who haven't seen the show yet.
About explaining the puzzles: I think he could strike a happy medium by rereading the clue after the puzzle is solved, stressing the key word, rather than elaborating.
I didn't really notice the graphics or music much, which is not a bad thing.
The Double Camouflage seems like they added it so that you wouldn't just have 20 minutes of the exact same thing. In the game I saw, the first DC puzzle was solved for only ten points, hardly exciting. I think it would have been more interesting to play for a sponsored prize.
Despite the small prize budget, I like this show better than any other GSN original.
-
Well, hey, the set for the Fleming-era Jeopardy! was small, too, and we don't gripe about that. Nor the 3Ws set.
This is a well-presented, challenging, though not particularly interesting, game with a $5000 top prize, presented on TV during an era in which gas prices are way too high.
It's 1975 all over again!
-
Hidden in the credits: it's shot at KCET, one of LA's PBS stations. Any other game shows do that?
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'156680\' date=\'Jul 4 2007, 10:29 PM\']
Hidden in the credits: it's shot at KCET, one of LA's PBS stations. Any other game shows do that?
[/quote]
Either they don't squeeze the credits, or you have some good eyes. ;-)
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'156680\' date=\'Jul 4 2007, 09:29 PM\']
Hidden in the credits: it's shot at KCET, one of LA's PBS stations. Any other game shows do that?
[/quote]
The ill-fated WB game "In The Dark" was done there. Currently, the California Lottery's "Big Spin" is taped there, with our esteemed Mr. West announcing.
KCET's studio lot has a long history; more details can be found here. (http://\"http://www.kcet.org/about/station-history/index.php\")
-
The show does have a That's the Question vibe, as many have noted. Quiet, deliberate, cerebral, interesting to a word game fanatic like me. And probably not easy or fun enough for the casual channel-hopper. It just doesn't get a quick hook into the audience, the way Lingo did when Chuck first trotted out those twenty eps from Holland a long, long time ago.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'156695\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 10:00 AM\']
The show does have a That's the Question vibe, as many have noted. Quiet, deliberate, cerebral, interesting to a word game fanatic like me. And probably not easy or fun enough for the casual channel-hopper. It just doesn't get a quick hook into the audience, the way Lingo did when Chuck first trotted out those twenty eps from Holland a long, long time ago.[/quote]
It's very much like That's The Question, but I like this one a lot more and I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe the writing? I also don't believe this is any more or less accessible than Lingo. Even if it's not easy to play, what you're trying to do is almost immediately understandable.
I do wish they hadn't seen fit to air Camouflage during the 7-8 hour in the East, since that is the one hour of the day where game show fans are already being served. Still, I really shouldn't complain, since this is exactly the kind of show I'm been asking GSN to get behind for quite some time now.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'156699\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 08:25 AM\']
I do wish they hadn't seen fit to air Camouflage during the 7-8 hour in the East, since that is the one hour of the day where game show fans are already being served. Still, I really shouldn't complain, since this is exactly the kind of show I'm been asking GSN to get behind for quite some time now.
[/quote]
I'd agree with you if the gameplay wasn't so freakin' mundane. Look at something like Wordplay: relatively simple concept made watchable through the inclusion of the gameboard and an interesting endgame. This feels like they came up with the mechanic and said "Okay, we're done now." It's strong, granted, but not THAT strong.
-
I hope the show works, too, but I'm not optimistic. Hard-to-use is a killer. Lingo is a breeze by comparison, which is why it clicked immediately. Almost as soon as the show premiered, GSN was bragging about Lingo's numbers. I haven't seen anything similar for Camouflage. But who knows?
At this point GSN needs something to work. The numbers have been terrible recently. I just hope the network stays on CableWorld's top fifty list when they publish the June chart later this month. GSN might slide right off, judging from the Variety story about second quarter ratings and the network's perilous 48th slot on the May chart.
-
MTV's "WEBriot," hosted by Dweezil Zappa's disembodied head, was shot at KCET (and wasn't a bad show, particularly with Chris Darley doing some creative-but-not-annoying directing choices using the jib cams).
Seems to me that Comedy Central's "The News Hole with Harry Shearer," an unsuccessful attempt at a show like "HIGNFY!", was also shot at KCET.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'156713\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 09:49 AM\']
MTV's "WEBriot," hosted by Dweezil Zappa's disembodied head
[/quote]
Ahmet.
-
You know, I really enjoy the concept behind this game, and I liked the fact that it made me think and stumped me on numerous occasions. But I got the feeling several other posters have noted - that there just isn't much "there" there. By the time I hit the midpoint of Round 2, I felt like things were just kinda droning on.
Just a thought here, and feel free to tear me to shreds on it, if necessary:
Round 1: Standard gameplay, one-word puzzles from 100 points on down.
Round 2: All Double Camouflage puzzles. Two-word puzzles from 200 points on down, and a correct answer gets you a crack at the answer within an answer to double the score. Lowest score leaves at the end of the round.
Round 3: Speed Camouflage. 3 minutes of timed gameplay. Point values start at 100 for the first puzzle, increasing in 20-point increments for subsequent puzzles. Points do not decrease as letters drop off. Correct answer gets the points; buzzing in with a wrong answer costs the player the puzzle's value, the answer is revealed, and play moves on to the next puzzle.
Bonus Round: I like it as is. It's different enough from the standard "Answer __ questions in __ seconds to win __ dollars," and the consolation prize is respectable. The only change I might make is allowing the player to pass one puzzle during part one of the round.
And, at the risk of having Mr. Lesko appear on my doorstep, I think playing for dollars instead of points should be considered. Unlike Lingo, this bonus round isn't a near-gimme, and there isn't any sort of escalating bonus jackpot. I would think that even if money was paid out in the front game, the budget would be fairly equal to Lingo's, and may even average out a bit under, given the potential forpoints/dollars being lost in the third round.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'156729\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 11:10 AM\']
Just a thought here, and feel free to tear me to shreds on it, if necessary:
[/quote]
This is at least marginally more interesting than what's there now. I would REALLY like to see a mechanic in addition to "here's a puzzle. buzz in when you know it. lather. rinse. repeat." Changing up the scoring (and I think your scoring system for the speed round is broken, but I can't put my finger on why, it's just my gut) doesn't quite fix it for me.
But it's better.
And, at the risk of having Mr. Lesko appear on my doorstep, I think playing for dollars instead of points should be considered.
As long as a winning score is sub-, say, $1500, you will never hear me complain about this. I think it screams "cheap!" when a game show pastes on a point system that could easily translate into dollars with a modicum of a hit to the prize budget. and it's obvious that the only reason it ISN'T dollars is because Points Are Free.
(Make it sub-$1000 and I have no problem sending the other players home with the cash in front of them, either. This one single hack fixes the ONLY problem I ever had with Go.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'156732\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 02:02 PM\']
I would REALLY like to see a mechanic in addition to "here's a puzzle. buzz in when you know it. lather. rinse. repeat."
[/quote]
I was thinking about a possible two-player Round 3 that involves taking turns either picking out the correct or deceptive letters in the puzzle, but I can't quite wrap my head around the finer details of how it would operate.
-
My thoughts :
The format : There's a good idea for a game in here. But not this. This format is all wrong, tedious and repetitive. I expected more.
Roger Lodge: There's a good host in him somewhere. But not this. He's all wrong for this, tedious and repetitive. I expected more.
Camoflauge is certainly mindless enough, and the play-along factor is there, but after one round I was bored.
There is the thought (and I know that Michi-Matt and I have agreed on this before) that GSN could do REALLY well comissioning cheap to produce daily word/trivia games like Camoflauge, and end up painting a good chunk of their schedule with them. I wish they'd do more of these and less of Starface/Poker/Quiznation.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'156736\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 03:27 PM\']
[There's a great game show in here somewhere, but not this. It's all wrong, tedious and repetitive. I expected more.]
I wish they'd do more of these and less of Starface/Poker/Quiznation.[/quote]
So you're saying you don't like the show, but you want to see more?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'156742\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 05:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'156736\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 03:27 PM\']
[There's a great game show in here somewhere, but not this. It's all wrong, tedious and repetitive. I expected more.]
I wish they'd do more of these and less of Starface/Poker/Quiznation.[/quote]
So you're saying you don't like the show, but you want to see more?
[/quote]
I think you seriously missed his point.
From my interpretation*, Camouflage has great potential, it's just not being used here. I think Michi-Matt would like to see more shows similar to Camouflage, and not Starface or Quiznation. And honestly, I agree, I like a game show that makes you think, but I'd also like to see it executed well. From the reviews I've read here (have yet to see the show), it sounds like a good show that just needs a little more game.
*In no way do I speak for Connecti-Matt, Michi-Matt, Matt Damon, Don Mattingly, or anyone of a similar name. The same applies to members of this or any other Internet forum.
-
The only person I would allow to speak for me is Johnny Olson.
-
Roger Lodge: beyond improved from ESPN Trivial Pursuit.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'156743\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 05:10 PM\']
*In no way do I speak for Connecti-Matt, Michi-Matt, Matt Damon, Don Mattingly, or anyone of a similar name. The same applies to members of this or any other Internet forum.
[/quote]
Since you got 'it' and Mello didn't get 'it', you may speak for me whenever you'd like.
Mello, otoh, shouldn't even speak near me, let alone for me.
-
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like they are playing a never-ending variant of Speedword. If I could change the game, I'd execute a Caesar's Challenge-type format. Answer a question correctly, and 2 or 3 "excess" letters are removed from the puzzle (more in subsequent rounds).
Roger Lodge is alright, but he always sounds bored. Somebody take this man off decaf and give him some of the real stuff. Either way, I enjoy the show.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'156701\' date=\'Jul 5 2007, 10:41 AM\']
I'd agree with you if the gameplay wasn't so freakin' mundane. Look at something like Wordplay: relatively simple concept made watchable through the inclusion of the gameboard and an interesting endgame. This feels like they came up with the mechanic and said "Okay, we're done now." It's strong, granted, but not THAT strong.
[/quote]
My thoughts, too. Wordplay also had the humor of the celebrities. I like Dylan's Chain Reaction better than this, just because the game isn't so flat. It's screwed up, but at least Davies knew he should punch it up a little. Indeed, Camouflage reminds me of one of Bob Stewart's more half-hearted attempts, except then the contestants would be teamed with Anita Gillette and Soupy Sales.
I'd imagine the clever clues thing will be done better by Merv in the fall.
-
There's something about the games diffaculty that kept me comming back for more last week. I would have prefered to see Bob Goen at the podium over Lodge however.
-
Well, watched this for the first time today.
Not a whole lot new to add, most of our thoughts are the same as posted. First round, difficult, but enjoyed it. Second round, "oh, it's the same game but longer". Third round "Gee, could use a little more variety here". Bonus round... "Oh, more of the same". Sheesh.
They really need to break that up, have the other rounds and bonus games be of the same principle, respecting the game premise, but different enough to be interesting.
I liked the host, but the wife immediately pointed out the needless explaining "base ball... a sport, played on a field, both by children and professionals".
Doubt we'll watch more of it. Definitely below Chain Reaction in my mind.
-
Roger Lodge = Captain Obvious.
/whatever happened to Tom Campbell
-
[quote name=\'davemackey\' post=\'157359\' date=\'Jul 12 2007, 03:34 AM\']
Roger Lodge = Captain Obvious.[/quote]
Hey, he could host MY show! It's there in my sig!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'157396\' date=\'Jul 12 2007, 11:21 PM\']
Hey, he could host MY show! It's there in my sig!
[/quote]
You'd let somebody else have the gig? What, are you too busy with QuizBusters?
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'157416\' date=\'Jul 13 2007, 08:54 AM\']You'd let somebody else have the gig? What, are you too busy with QuizBusters?[/quote]
Matt would move to exclusively hosting the nighttime version, $10,000,000 Masters of the Obvious.