The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: PYLdude on February 15, 2014, 02:50:42 AM
-
so I thought recently about some stuff in game shows that might come across as sort of anti-climactic- like when someone on Sale of the Century had the game locked away before the introduction of the speed round (and even some after that, perhaps), a champion on Jeopardy! who puts together a decent winning streak loses their last game in a runaway, stuff like that. (The quotes are meant to be a sign that your mileage may vary when it comes to what you might consider an anti-climax.)
So, perhaps against my better judgment considering the ability to discern of some posters such as those who like to compare companies' desire to protect their intellectual property to the tactics employed by the Gestapo, the KGB, or the Securitate, I'm going to ask a question...what are some moments that have occurred in game shows that to you seemed anticlimactic?
One of my favorites (if that really is the right word to use) is the way Stan Newman's reign as champion ended on The Challengers- sets the program's all time record for most money won by winning the Ultimate Challenge, wins the tournament of champions, and doesn't even make it to the Final Challenge on his last day.
Another, although my opinion of it has sort of changed since I got to view it, is Michael Friedman's loss to Alice Conkwright on Sale. He still had a shot to get close at the end but I think that once he missed the $25 money card in the final Fame Game, it was pretty much over from there. (I had been under the impression that he never had a chance to win and got his ass handed to him- granted, Alice did win by a fair amount but that was I think more based on her ability to pull away in the speed round. Keep in mind I never saw what happened in first run or on USA.)
Where do you stand?
-
I mentioned, some time ago, that the second Final Jeopardy in the ToC that included Bob Harris was completely moot. No combination of wager and outcome would change first, second or third, or even the amount that they won (because of the guaranteed minima). But the entire second game of the IBM challenge seemed anticlimactic.
On 1982-91 Pyramid, if the same player won both games and gave/got an illegal clue in the second WC, the rest of it was anticlimactic because you knew there wasn't going to be a big win, but you also knew that it wouldn't change who got to come back.
-
Wheel of Fortune, if the player in the lead is up by a very large margin, and the final spin is NOT for $6,000/letter...
-
Fast Money...anytime the family has fewer than say, 130 points going into the last two questions. Ray would mention that they're clearly playing for $5/point, and the hosts post-Louie often ribbed about how it would take a miracle. But still...anticlimactic.
-
Any version of Sale Of The Century with the final three questions rather than the speed round.
-
During the showcases, one contestant bids $1 because it's so painfully obvious that the other contestant overbid.....Although that has been known to backfire in a BIG way (for example...check out the ending on the 4/20/82 episode..available on YouTube)..
-
Where do you stand?
Today? Under an overhang. It is raining outside. A lot.
Just like the most recent Super Bowl, you're going to have blowouts. Every game show can't be a Kentucky Derby where somebody beats the other by a nose to wrest the championship. It is wonderful when that happens but doesn't always. Here's a thing I thought of while driving down to the office. In the later series of American Gladiators (by this time the treadmill was at the end and the contenders would rope swing into a paper barrier) one female contender led the other by a tally of 61-1, for a lead of thirty seconds in the Eliminator (she was on the cargo net when the second whistle blew.) We (almost certainly) know the outcome at that point, but Mike Adamle was so good at his job that he handled it well. On the other hand the rollerblading version of AG had a show-ending obstacle course that awarded 35 points to the winner. This meant that either the first (however many) events were worthless, or the Race to the Finish was for show.
Was the Final Challenge situation you mentioned anticlimactic? Yeah and no. We knew who the champion couldn't possibly be (but who cares, his final total was over $112,000) but there's still a championship to fight for (as well as the money). It helps that the Final Challenge is a gloriously awesome final act.
Now yesterday's Valentine's Day overbid? That was an anticlimax.
-
I would argue that the real anticlimax moments on AG would be easier found in the first two seasons when you saw somebody needing to win the Eliminator by a crapton of seconds and basically knew that it was impossible without a few strokes of dumb luck. But the 61-1 match certainly qualifies.
And IIRC the 1 was a courtesy point so she wouldn't enter the Eliminator scoreless.
-
There's an episode of Super Pay Cards! (Martin vs. Jeannette) which ended up at $500-$40 after Round 2. Since the max payout in Round 3 was $350 ($300 for five-of-a-kind + $50 for having the better hand), the game was already decided. They still played Round 3, but Art noted that the outcome was already known.
-
I thought of another: when The Price is Right does Big Money or Dream Car Week: whether or not the big massive prize is won or not it lets the air out of the rest of the show. Sure, people can still win lots of stuff, but the whole point of calling it a special week has already been done.
-
I remember watching an episode of UK Countdown that had a score of something like 120 to 25. The loser only scored on ties.
Honestly, I'm not wild about their scoring system, which rarely makes the Conundrum "crucial". Maybe it's the American in me.
-
I'll mention $ale, but much later in the NBC run.
The recently posted clip of Rani White's big $50,000 win at the Winner's Big Money Game. It's not necessarily the win that was anticlimactic, but the reaction. It all felt underwhelming, from the music cue to Perry's muted excitement (by no means a rip on Perry himself).
As for the WBMG itself, the fun is gone after the first missed/passed puzzle. They're merely playing to fill time at that point.
The Inquisitive One
-
For me, it was the "Find The Car Card" game after the Money Cards on Card Sharks.
The odds were set for the player to lose well over 75% of the time so "You just won $14,000 at the Money Cards, but you lose that car!" made it feel wah-wah to me.
-
I can see your point about Michael Friedman's loss to Alice Conkwright on Sale, but watching it recently I didn't really find it too anticlimactic since Michael was so good on speed rounds throughout his run I thought it was still possible for him to win. Alice was just so good from day one of figuring out when to buzz in to get enough extra information from the question on Jim Perry's reaction time to stop his reading.
I always hated the end game of Lingo for being so anticlimactic. There was that great two minutes of puzzles, followed by a very slow pick out some balls and see what you win, oh and by the way you can only win the big prize on the first pull. That meant that as bad as the slowdown already was, it slowed down even further.
My wife, who doesn't care for game shows put it best after watching the Bingo game revival end game on GSN---bonus rounds are supposed to be fast and exciting, that was neither.
-
Many of the Louie Anderson/early Karn episodes were anticlimactic when a family got enough points after three rounds to "throw" the final one strike round, so the other family cannot overtake them. Why it took the entire Louie run and part of the Karn run to realize the broken scoring system, I don't know.
-
Pretty much every show of "The Chase." You know Mark's gonna win it most of the time.
-
Wheel of Fortune, if the player in the lead is up by a very large margin, and the final spin is NOT for $6,000/letter...
I disagree with this one, since they're still playing for a reasonable amount of cash. It may not determine the winner, but the subcockles of my heart are warmed at least a little if the poor guy who spun Bankrupt three times gets to take home $4,350 thanks to the speed-up round.
-
Pretty much every show of "The Chase." You know Mark's gonna win it most of the time.
8/10. You'll get some bites.
-
I disagree with this one, since they're still playing for a reasonable amount of cash. It may not determine the winner, but the subcockles of my heart are warmed at least a little if the poor guy who spun Bankrupt three times gets to take home $4,350 thanks to the speed-up round.
I see your point here.....There are still second and third place winners to get to take home their cash and that IS a good thing.....But like I said, as far as being the overall winner....If the first-place person has a nice lead built, and the final spin amounts to be on the average of about $1700, no way they're going to the bonus round...
-
Wheel of Fortune's final spin of the day brings up a question: is it meant to be the climactic and exciting moment where anything can happen or is it a means to an end that the main game wraps up at roughly the same time every day? And was the percentage of "up in the air" games greater in the old days?
-
It may not determine the winner, but the subcockles of my heart are warmed at least a little if the poor guy who spun Bankrupt three times gets to take home $4,350 thanks to the speed-up round.
That's one of the reasons why I like the Toss-Ups. Spreads the money around.
-
I disagree with this one, since they're still playing for a reasonable amount of cash. It may not determine the winner, but the subcockles of my heart are warmed at least a little if the poor guy who spun Bankrupt three times gets to take home $4,350 thanks to the speed-up round.
I see your point here.....There are still second and third place winners to get to take home their cash and that IS a good thing.....But like I said, as far as being the overall winner....If the first-place person has a nice lead built, and the final spin amounts to be on the average of about $1700, no way they're going to the bonus round...
Caesar's Challenge was worse, at least in the one episode I saw. Only the winner got the cash, which meant there came a point where the player already in the lead was the only one for whom it made any difference. (In the 20 years that I was a daily J! viewer, I did see one game where a player rang in on a clue even though it was mathematically impossible for him to get out of the hole.)
-
I still don't understand why that's a problem: the final word takes a few seconds, tote up the scores, let's go shopping. Done deal.
-
Wheel of Fortune's final spin of the day brings up a question: is it meant to be the climactic and exciting moment where anything can happen or is it a means to an end that the main game wraps up at roughly the same time every day? And was the percentage of "up in the air" games greater in the old days?
I think the show wants viewers to see it as an exciting moment - they have introduced meta-puzzles this season into Round 4 such as "THE TABLES ARE TURNING", "WINNING A NARROW VICTORY", and "THAT'S THE WAY TO PLAY".
The addition of $1,000 to the Final Spin amount would make me think that final standings are more subject to change today then in the old days.
-
The game show Monopoly itself:
Pretty much the game was decided after the first round when the color groups were won: The person who won the most color groups (and thus, the most cash) got to buy the most houses/hotels which were redeemable for cash when Round 2 ended. I don't recall seeing too many moments when the second place contestant overtook the first absent a railroad hostile takeover. And the contestant trailing was all but shut out entirely.
It is because of Monopoly's broken "system" that I find the game interesting in concept but not fun to watch because its execution is on the whole, anticlimactic.
-
Pretty much every show of "The Chase." You know Mark's gonna win it most of the time.
That's why I prefer the British version.
-
Pretty much every show of "The Chase." You know Mark's gonna win it most of the time.
That's why I prefer the British version.
You got trolled.
-
For me, it was the "Find The Car Card" game after the Money Cards on Card Sharks.
The odds were set for the player to lose well over 75% of the time so "You just won $14,000 at the Money Cards, but you lose that car!" made it feel wah-wah to me.
The way the Wheel bonus puzzles have been written the last few years with that one letter that you need to find to have any chance at winning, it's got all of the issues the Card Sharks car game had (an unlikely win which feels like it has very little at stake when the contestant just finished winning as much or more) plus a lack of suspense. As soon as the contestant's letters come up on the board, it's usually pretty obvious whether (s)he wins or loses.
-
For me, it was the "Find The Car Card" game after the Money Cards on Card Sharks.
The odds were set for the player to lose well over 75% of the time so "You just won $14,000 at the Money Cards, but you lose that car!" made it feel wah-wah to me.
The way the Wheel bonus puzzles have been written the last few years with that one letter that you need to find to have any chance at winning, it's got all of the issues the Card Sharks car game had (an unlikely win which feels like it has very little at stake when the contestant just finished winning as much or more) plus a lack of suspense. As soon as the contestant's letters come up on the board, it's usually pretty obvious whether (s)he wins or loses.
Reminds me of a discussion brought up a couple of years ago, on how the bonus round itself has become anticlimactic, even if the contestant wins. Pat opens the envelope, and the reaction is often very lowkey. Someone speculated that some of it is because you already know you've won at least $25,000...you're just waiting for the big reveal.
-
Reminds me of a discussion brought up a couple of years ago, on how the bonus round itself has become anticlimactic, even if the contestant wins. Pat opens the envelope, and the reaction is often very lowkey. Someone speculated that some of it is because you already know you've won at least $25,000...you're just waiting for the big reveal.
Last night a gal scooped the main game car, prize puzzle, ten grand in round three and various other things to finish the main game a dollar under $42,000. When she won a further forty grand in the bonus puzzle her family went nutzo. I don't necessarily find it awful if the bonus winner does a little fist pump after winning the money--they should do whatever comes naturally instead of manufacturing an emotion.
-
I think you illustrated where I was going with this. Nowadays, the main game offers so much loot to where you could win an equal or lesser value in the bonus round. And I think that's where my idea of it being anticlimactic comes from. "Oh I've already won $42,000...what's another 40K?*" If she pulls the 25K envelope, it's still a little more on the check, but I'm sure the reaction is a little more muted.
15-20 years ago, $42,000 was a really nice one-day total (main game + bonus). Or the 80s, where some winners didn't even crack five figures in the main game, but would play for a car worth thousands more.
*Not how I'd treat it necessarily, but just an observation
-
The way the Wheel bonus puzzles have been written the last few years with that one letter that you need to find to have any chance at winning, it's got all of the issues the Card Sharks car game had (an unlikely win which feels like it has very little at stake when the contestant just finished winning as much or more) plus a lack of suspense. As soon as the contestant's letters come up on the board, it's usually pretty obvious whether (s)he wins or loses.
This has been the case for much more of Wheel's run than that. How often did people solve WALK or WAX without the 'key' letter(s)?
-
I always felt $ale offering the cash jackpot, then the cash jackpot and prizes was anti-climatic. The syndicated version corrected this.
-
I bet the contestants felt differently,= given how many bought the glass case and how few (any?) bought All The Prizes.
-
I bet the contestants felt differently,= given how many bought the glass case and how few (any?) bought All The Prizes.
Only "All The Prizes" winners from daytime that come to mind are Mort Kamins (who won before the jackpot was introduced) and Barbara Phillips (but didn't she only win the Lot by way of having a major blowout victory on her final day?)
-
I meant on the nighttime version specifically. Barbara got to $120 on account of a $15 money card and her opponents laying down for the last three questions. I suspect she would have taken the money as well if it came to that.
-
I wouldn't call having the cash jackpot as a prize anticlimactic but a flaw in the gameplay structure. My reasoning is that you build up to this big payoff of over $100,000 and then someone leaves with the second to last thing you can buy.
I think the syndie show got it right by making the contestants earn the bonus as opposed to simply purchasing it.
-
I remember watching an episode of Mike O'Malley's 'Get The Picture' on the now-defunct Nickelodeon GAS channel, where, from a season 2 episode, the score was SO lopsided: 960-80. Time ran out in the second ('Dots') round, and the final puzzle was worth only 75 points. The final score ended up being 960-155(?).
-
I submit that most of the Nickelodeon game shows were not overly concerned with providing an exciting finish. On Finders Keepers it was possible (though unlikely) that the game would be over at the conclusion of the second hidden picture round.)
-
I never really looked at the cash jackpot as anti-climactic or even flawed. But then again, if I'm a contestant, I'm prolly bailing with the briefcase of cash too. To me, winning big money (esp. by 1983 standards) still looks good. Might not be as dramatic as winning the lot, but I'd still find it enjoyable.
-
I never really looked at the cash jackpot as anti-climactic or even flawed. But then again, if I'm a contestant, I'm prolly bailing with the briefcase of cash too. To me, winning big money (esp. by 1983 standards) still looks good. Might not be as dramatic as winning the lot, but I'd still find it enjoyable.
I'm not arguing that it wasn't a good prize to get. Because it certainly was nice to be able to take a buttload of cash with you. :)
Where I stand is that having it as a shopping prize instead of a reward for completing the journey to the highest level took a lot away from the point of being able to potentially buy a six-figure prize haul for less than a thousand bucks.
-
The way the Wheel bonus puzzles have been written the last few years with that one letter that you need to find to have any chance at winning, it's got all of the issues the Card Sharks car game had (an unlikely win which feels like it has very little at stake when the contestant just finished winning as much or more) plus a lack of suspense. As soon as the contestant's letters come up on the board, it's usually pretty obvious whether (s)he wins or loses.
This has been the case for much more of Wheel's run than that. How often did people solve WALK or WAX without the 'key' letter(s)?
True that they've always had some seriously hard bonus puzzles from time to time, but it seems like they've upped the lower bound on the difficulty. It's been a long time since I've seen a contestant appear to get a bonus puzzle from RSTLNE alone, and it seems like the phrases that they use are found less frequently in everyday speech than they used to be. I recall seeing a puzzle that was "QUITE A PAIR" a few weeks back, and it's a perfectly valid thing to say, but I don't really think of it as a phrase that stands alone along the lines of something like "SNACK BAR", which was the puzzle on a random Goen episode I clicked on on YouTube a moment ago.
-
One from overseas this week. Radio 4's Brain of Britain has been going for 61 years and the format is as simple as can be. The contestant is asked a question and scores a point for a right answer. Further right answers score more points up to five, and a bonus point is awarded for a perfect run, at which point that turn is over so six points is the maximum score for a round. If at any time a wrong answer is given the other three contestants can light their lamp (and what a glorious effect this is for a radio quiz) and steal the point. The next player in line goes and whoever has the most points at the end of the thirty minutes wins and moves up to the semi-finals or grand championship.
In this week's episode, the second semi-final as the contestants are coming down the home stretch the host reads out the scores: "Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Eventual winner, twenty."
-
"Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Eventual winner, twenty."
(http://eddyphillips.blog.com/files/2012/04/Election_Night_Special1-300x225.jpg)
"Kevin Phillips-Bong: naught."
-
One from overseas this week. Radio 4's Brain of Britain has been going for 61 years and the format is as simple as can be. The contestant is asked a question and scores a point for a right answer. Further right answers score more points up to five, and a bonus point is awarded for a perfect run, at which point that turn is over so six points is the maximum score for a round. If at any time a wrong answer is given the other three contestants can light their lamp (and what a glorious effect this is for a radio quiz) and steal the point. The next player in line goes and whoever has the most points at the end of the thirty minutes wins and moves up to the semi-finals or grand championship.
In this week's episode, the second semi-final as the contestants are coming down the home stretch the host reads out the scores: "Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Some guy, six. Eventual winner, twenty."
When does this air and is a stream available? Sounds like an interesting listen.
-
When does this air and is a stream available? Sounds like an interesting listen.
It's on BBC Radio 4, but I grab it in podcast form from the Radio 4 General Knowledge Quizzes podcast. Unfortunately all that's left this series are the two remaining semi-finals, championship and Brain of Brains 2014, where the three previous annual winners come back to do it again, for a chance to play in the enniatic Top Brain, at which point the winner is cryogenically frozen as a tribute to their brainery. Sign up for the podcast and look for "all episodes."
-
When does this air and is a stream available? Sounds like an interesting listen.
It's on BBC Radio 4, but I grab it in podcast form from the Radio 4 General Knowledge Quizzes podcast. Unfortunately all that's left this series are the two remaining semi-finals, championship and Brain of Brains 2014, where the three previous annual winners come back to do it again, for a chance to play in the enniatic Top Brain, at which point the winner is cryogenically frozen as a tribute to their brainery. Sign up for the podcast and look for "all episodes."
Thanks, will take a look for it. :)
-
True that they've always had some seriously hard bonus puzzles from time to time, but it seems like they've upped the lower bound on the difficulty. It's been a long time since I've seen a contestant appear to get a bonus puzzle from RSTLNE alone, and it seems like the phrases that they use are found less frequently in everyday speech than they used to be. I recall seeing a puzzle that was "QUITE A PAIR" a few weeks back, and it's a perfectly valid thing to say, but I don't really think of it as a phrase that stands alone along the lines of something like "SNACK BAR", which was the puzzle on a random Goen episode I clicked on on YouTube a moment ago.
True, but most of the 90s also had people trying to figure out a single four-letter word like SKIN or GURU or FLAG seemingly half the time. Or even worse, something like WIG, where RSTLNE doesn't even give you a head start. Personally, I think it's a toss-up (no pun intended) whether those or their recent strings of adjective-noun phrases like FLUFFY WOOL are tougher.
-
Or even worse, something like WIG, where RSTLNE doesn't even give you a head start.
Sure it does.
-
One from overseas this week. Radio 4's Brain of Britain has been going for 61 years and the format is as simple as can be. The contestant is asked a question and scores a point for a right answer. Further right answers score more points up to five, and a bonus point is awarded for a perfect run, at which point that turn is over so six points is the maximum score for a round. If at any time a wrong answer is given the other three contestants can light their lamp (and what a glorious effect this is for a radio quiz) and steal the point. The next player in line goes and whoever has the most points at the end of the thirty minutes wins and moves up to the semi-finals or grand championship.
Plus, every three years, the champion faces the two previous champions in a Tournament of Champions (Brain of Brains)...and every nine years, that year's Brain of Brains winner faces off against the two previous Brains of Brains in a Super ToC (Top Brain). I wonder if they have ever tried getting the three most recent Top Brains together.
I used to listen to this quite a bit when it was on BBC World Service (back in the days before streaming). The one Top Brain I've heard was in 1999, the year Kevin Ashman won. (I'd like to see Ashman take on Jennings and/or Rutter (although Rutter was lucky not to lose his Decades Tournament qualifier) for some sort of "world (or at least English-speaking world) championship.")
In fact, David Letterman was a fan of the show as well, and invited one of the champions on his show.
-
Plus, every three years, the champion faces the two previous champions in a Tournament of Champions (Brain of Brains)...and every nine years, that year's Brain of Brains winner faces off against the two previous Brains of Brains in a Super ToC (Top Brain). I wonder if they have ever tried getting the three most recent Top Brains together.
I will note that I did mention this, and I doubt you could have a Tippy Top Brain contest as one contestant would have played his last championship nearly twenty years prior.
-
How about the remake of Twenty-One, where the host pretty much did all he could to make some moments anticlimactic by telling someone that his opponent already had three strikes, so the current player, knowing that all he had to do to win was get a correct answer, chose the 1-point question?
-
How about the remake of Twenty-One, where the host pretty much did all he could to make some moments anticlimactic by telling someone that his opponent already had three strikes, so the current player, knowing that all he had to do to win was get a correct answer, chose the 1-point question?
Didn't that only happen once?
-
Didn't that only happen once?
Yes, and the likely agitators agitated over it because OMG Controversy!
The guy got a game gift-wrapped to him and it didn't happen again.
-
Yeah, I was gonna call shenanigans because I figured if that DID happen it was a massive error. Sounds like I was right.
-
Yeah, I was gonna call shenanigans because I figured if that DID happen it was a massive error. Sounds like I was right.
I also seem to remember that the other times that the situation arose (I know I saw it at least once) Maury at least had the presence of mind to wait until the person chose a question value before informing the player of the potential pf a double strikeout.
-
How about the remake of Twenty-One, where the host pretty much did all he could to make some moments anticlimactic by telling someone that his opponent already had three strikes, so the current player, knowing that all he had to do to win was get a correct answer, chose the 1-point question?
Didn't that only happen once?
I thought it happened a couple of times. I may have been confusing this with the times he told a contestant that the opponent had 21, so that contestant would go for 21 and use up his "expert," although that wasn't anticlimactic.
-
How about the remake of Twenty-One, where the host pretty much did all he could to make some moments anticlimactic by telling someone that his opponent already had three strikes, so the current player, knowing that all he had to do to win was get a correct answer, chose the 1-point question?
Didn't that only happen once?
I thought it happened a couple of times. I may have been confusing this with the times he told a contestant that the opponent had 21, so that contestant would go for 21 and use up his "expert," although that wasn't anticlimactic.
I think you're confusing it again. Maury would tell the player his opponent reached 21 but only after that player picked the question value. Never before. In fact, I know that there was one time where a contestant, after his opponent had already hit 21, chose a point value that would've kept him under 21 had he answered it. After he did, Maury told him that the value of the question wasn't enough to tie the opposing player and because of that the game was declared over and the other player won.
-
I think you're confusing it again. Maury would tell the player his opponent reached 21 but only after that player picked the question value. Never before. In fact, I know that there was one time where a contestant, after his opponent had already hit 21, chose a point value that would've kept him under 21 had he answered it. After he did, Maury told him that the value of the question wasn't enough to tie the opposing player and because of that the game was declared over and the other player won.
Given that the two contestants were always playing for a different prize except for that first bout and after Rahim won his fourth game, I maintain that the audience could comprehend something like $5,000 a point difference.
-
Finders Keepers became anticlimactic when a team got at least $550 because then it was mathematically impossible for that team to not win the game. There was one game which ended with a score of $975-$25.