The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Sonic Whammy on March 09, 2018, 07:57:22 PM
-
The guys decided to play an interesting game for the podcast tonight.
The rules: Pick any game show past or present. You are allowed to change one thing about how the show ran to make it better. But it must be a thing. You cannot change any personnel on the show (so no replacing Steve Harvey on Feud or something like that).
So, what one thing would you change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHFIgbl1Dbw
-
Bullseye: Every contract is a bullseye and the bottom window shuffles money amounts.
Body Language: Every word guessed in the acting portion goes into a pot that is collected by the team that solves the puzzle.
Weakest Link: Strongest Link in each round gets immunity.
Millionaire Roulette: Lower the value of the big values, allow the bank to be the fallback point for questions eleven through fifteen. (Yup, add the fifteenth question back.)
Family Feud: Families stay on for the entire week.
-
Lingo GSN: Win $1,000 X the number of words guessed in bonus Lingo, and double if you get all 10.
-
Family Feud (any version) : jackpot bonus for naming all #1 answers in Fast Money
Wheel of Fortune : Bonus contestant picks 4 consonants and a vowel. Vanna reveals any letters. Then, the contestant picks 4 more consonants (+WC if in play) and another vowel based on what was revealed. Then start the 10 second countdown to solve.
Press Your Luck : Round 2, Big Money prize squares, treated like prizes and the Double Your $$ square. $10,000 then (if hit) replaced with a $25,000 card.
Supermarket Sweep : Double Coupon Bonus. Kind of like the shopping list, but instead of a list, each team is given an envelope each with the same three coupons for specific products. Gathering 1 or 2 items is worth $75 each. Finding all 3 doubles the bonus to $300.
Shop Til You Drop 2-story mall version : Each of the base pre-exchange boxes has a gift card of unknown cash value along with the item. One of the cards is worth more than $500.
Match Game current version : Super Dooper Match. Both winning contestants from each half try to match a Blank with each other. If they do, they both double their winnings.
-
My Weakest Link change only works if the second syndicated format is used but: Strongest link throughout game automatically qualifies for final round, vote is then cast for who he/she wants to face.
Other changes I would have made:
Hollywood Squares (most recent): installed the key bonus round earlier than penultimate season. The first bonus wss too simplistic and the second out of place.
To Tell the Truth: bonus money for any subject the panel didn't identify (as in he didn't get any of the four votes) on top of his split pot stake.
-
Wheel of Fortune : Bonus contestant picks 4 consonants and a vowel. Vanna reveals any letters. Then, the contestant picks 4 more consonants (+WC if in play) and another vowel based on what was revealed. Then start the 10 second countdown to solve.
How does that improve the game? Do you really think people are going to pick a ton of letter outside what they're currently spotted?
Press Your Luck : Round 2, Big Money prize squares, treated like prizes and the Double Your $$ square. $10,000 then (if hit) replaced with a $25,000 card.
Making the game pretty much insurmountable if someone managed to hit both.
Shop Til You Drop 2-story mall version : Each of the base pre-exchange boxes has a gift card of unknown cash value along with the item. One of the cards is worth more than $500.
You're pretty much negating the need to go shopping and do exchanges.
Supermarket Sweep : Double Coupon Bonus. Kind of like the shopping list, but instead of a list, each team is given an envelope each with the same three coupons for specific products. Gathering 1 or 2 items is worth $75 each. Finding all 3 doubles the bonus to $300.
You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Even if you implemented this, why not just give each team their own list. Which still, IMO, is an exercise in futility.
Family Feud: Families stay on for the entire week.
Only plausible if casting was better. I would have no desire to watch two dud families for an entire week.
If I was making changes, I would have made Super Password a simple best 2-of-3 match. Let a contestant stay on until they lose twice, ala Classic Concentration.
-
Funny You Should Ask - play more game. Merrill Heatter saw the very early slow-moving Squares and demanded the amount of questions be increased. Four rounds - $50, $100, $150, and $200, then the bonus. Maybe borrow the old Chain Reaction bonus ladder - first bonus answer right, $50, Add a 0 for the next two questions? One can dream, can't one?
-
Body Language: Every word guessed in the acting portion goes into a pot that is collected by the team that solves the puzzle.
Weakest Link: Strongest Link in each round gets immunity.
I've always thought those two changes would legit make the games better.
With Body Language - Double values in round 2. High score after 4 puzzles wins. Tie breaker puzzle if needed.
Weakest Link - players blind to strongest/weakest link. If strongest link is voted off, he/she can choose which of his voters to eliminate.
My changes:
Shop 'til you Drop - winning couples' score determines method to getting to second floor. Low score - gotta use an elevator; average score - you get the stairs; high score - you get an escalator. Put the high end stores on the upper floor (but not necessarily the high end prizes). Convert the lower floor to a food court, DMV/Marriage License center, Post Office.
Password '75 - two changes -
* Password round - winner remains at the table to defend their crown
* Password pool round - first player to 4 goes to the Password round; remaining players stay until they fail to qualify twice. Players ejected by Password pop-up seats (kidding - baaroop!)
Pyramid - main game - contestants keep getting items until their 30 seconds expire
Wheel of Fortune - number of $100k/$1 mil cards on wheel equal to the number of puzzles contestant solved in main game
Chain Reaction Cullen - ability to give letters to the opposing player on deck. If letter is given to opposing on deck player, next letter option moves to next player on that team.
Also eliminate the double scores and/or make the win target 99. Or at least bring back a loser for best 2/3. The main games were so short and the bonus rounds were so long. An average game was around 1.5 chains.
Bullseye - end the bonus round after 5 spins. No auto freezing bullseyes. If you don't hit $1000 after 5 spins too bad game over you keep what you've got. Also your main game contracts are either 1, 2, 3 or Bullseye. Bullseye contracts end when spinning player stops or when opposing player answers correctly.
-
My Weakest Link change only works if the second syndicated format is used but: Strongest link throughout game automatically qualifies for final round, vote is then cast for who he/she wants to face.
One of the things I liked about the first daily series was that the fifth round was played for a double prize so that the players had to balance the risk of keeping someone around who could build up the prize money but also win it. The second season not only lost a round of game play but the jump from $5,000 to $25,000 meant that teams should either go for the $25k every time or just bank $250 for each right answer.
I like your idea a whole lot but how do you ensure that the strongest link stays around? Do they also have immunity in each round?
To Mark's point: I think this would require that Alphabetics is either played for $5,000 or $10,000 every day, or the jackpot grows less quickly. That $100 puzzle balances things out so where they play one end game every day. I had previously put forward the idea that whoever wins more money plays Alphabetics at the end of the day--first three puzzles worth $100 and the rest worth $200. This would require someone who will crack the whip a little on the game play.
A while ago I had said that Tic Tac Dough needed harder questions, but I don't think that's the case. The game stalls if marks are not being put on the board, though I think good players could answer 400 to 800 level questions. Three stars would individually dance around the board denoting the question is played as a jump-in whatever the category is.
-
Three stars would individually dance around the board denoting the question is played as a jump-in whatever the category is.
This was how it worked on CBS before the syndicated format we are all familiar with: after the first round, three categories would come up with black backgrounds instead of blue, and those were jump-ins. (And I wanna remember they only shuffled every two questions.)
-
Shop 'til you Drop - winning couples' score determines method to getting to second floor. Low score - gotta use an elevator; average score - you get the stairs; high score - you get an escalator.
So by large, escalators have larger steps than stairs. Why are you penalizing a fast runner?
-
Pyramid - main game - contestants keep getting items until their 30 seconds expire
I don't think that helps anything, especially since one of the rounds is called "Mystery *7*."
But (for the current version): I'd love to see them display each team's time for the tiebreaker.
-
Shop 'til you Drop - winning couples' score determines method to getting to second floor. Low score - gotta use an elevator; average score - you get the stairs; high score - you get an escalator.
So by large, escalators have larger steps than stairs. Why are you penalizing a fast runner?
Running up a moving escalator gets you to the top faster than running up regular stairs
-
Family Feud: Families stay on for the entire week.
Only plausible if casting was better. I would have no desire to watch two dud families for an entire week.
I was thinking the same thing. It's one thing to have a dud contestant on Jackpot! all week among 15 others; that person can be hidden easier. But if you've got a lousy family, you're stuck with them for five straight shows.
On the other hand, instituting a two- or three-loss rule would encourage more families from different areas of the country to apply. It's hard to get excited about having five people travel hundreds or thousands of miles apiece to split eighty-four dollars.
-
Body Language: Every word guessed in the acting portion goes into a pot that is collected by the team that solves the puzzle.
Yes! Yes! A million times, yes! I always felt the pantomime portion should have been a part of the maingame scoring. I guess if I put myself back in that time, it was not long after Password essentially did the same thing.
Name That Tune: The round scores of 10-10-20 kept a trailing contestant in the game, but it also allowed a poor performing contestant to eke out a victory in the last round and win the tiebreaker, while being shut out in the rest of the competition. To narrow it down to one format, I think the 1980s version should have had both contestants in the Golden Medley like the '70s version, crediting a contestant for each round won.
Bullseye: The game dragged with long contracts on questions where contestants were not well versed in either category presented. I thought the contract should be the number of questions asked, not the number correctly answered. The correct answer on the final question (which could be increased difficulty) would still control the pot. If not answered correctly, either a simple tossup question would determine control, or continue the game with the last correct player spinning, with neither player allowed to bank at that point. There would need to be a provision to prevent the "endless" game, perhaps by "freezing" the contract window, and making it an automatic 1-question contract on the next spin (which could be a provision that kicks in only when there is at least a $2,000 bank).
-
Yes! Yes! A million times, yes! I always felt the pantomime portion should have been a part of the maingame scoring. I guess if I put myself back in that time, it was not long after Password essentially did the same thing.
At least for Password, though, the puzzles were their own form of Password — clues led you to a Password, this time in the form of the puzzle. For Body Language, the puzzle portion was very divorced from the pantomime, so I definitely can agree that giving money in the front game for the pantomime makes sense.
I always thought that you should get more money in (Super) Password (Plus) for how few clues you needed to guess the puzzle — so, you got more money for guessing with the first word than with the fifth. For example, $500 for the first, $400 for the second and so on — and you’d need something like $800 to win the match.
-
Or, have a flat amount for each password, and the winner of the puzzle also wins the amount of the unplayed passwords. To keep it within the rough budget of the SP/P+ era, $25 per password, $25 for the puzzle, making each round $150. Set the target above $300 to ensure a crossover.
-
Bullseye: The game dragged with long contracts on questions where contestants were not well versed in either category presented. I thought the contract should be the number of questions asked, not the number correctly answered. The correct answer on the final question (which could be increased difficulty) would still control the pot. If not answered correctly, either a simple tossup question would determine control, or continue the game with the last correct player spinning, with neither player allowed to bank at that point. There would need to be a provision to prevent the "endless" game, perhaps by "freezing" the contract window, and making it an automatic 1-question contract on the next spin (which could be a provision that kicks in only when there is at least a $2,000 bank).
Having seen the little bit of Double Cross that I have, I think I would try to make Bullseye as much like that as possible. The contract element is uninteresting, and the risk/reward really isn't there, plus I would want to get to play with the prop as much as possible.
I was thinking the same thing. It's one thing to have a dud contestant on Jackpot! all week among 15 others; that person can be hidden easier. But if you've got a lousy family, you're stuck with them for five straight shows.
On the other hand, instituting a two- or three-loss rule would encourage more families from different areas of the country to apply. It's hard to get excited about having five people travel hundreds or thousands of miles apiece to split eighty-four dollars.
Perhaps they only thing to recommend about Mindreaders was how they handled this--each team would play three games against the same opposition and that was that. That doesn't really scale to a five-day week unless a game is shorter than an episode.
-
Or, have a flat amount for each password, and the winner of the puzzle also wins the amount of the unplayed passwords. To keep it within the rough budget of the SP/P+ era, $25 per password, $25 for the puzzle, making each round $150. Set the target above $300 to ensure a crossover.
That has some major runaway potential that the SP and first-to-$300 P+ systems didn't have because it was mathematically impossible for a contestant to be in a worse situation than "get this round and the score is tied." Also, you'd have to choose between ending matches mid-puzzle or the possibility of having a situation where solving a puzzle gets a contestant across the finish line but with a lower total score than their opponent.
-
If the value of each unplayed word is the same as each played word, that's not any different than what Password Plus did, plus you want a round to be worth more the longer you go as opposed to less.
-
PYL: Each square has four images. Top amounts are $10,000/$12,000/$13,000/$15,000. Avoid-a-Whammy insurance markers can be "won" in the first big board round. If a player has a marker and hits a Whammy, only the spin is lost. Also Pick-a-Prize square and Double Next Spin or $1000 square are added. For the latter, if the player chooses to double the next spin but hits a Whammy, he gets two.
Super Password: The main game is best 3 of 5 puzzles solved. $500 is awarded for solving the puzzle on the first password, $400 on the second, and so on. The fourth puzzle only has three passwords; the fifth only two (to speed up the round). The Cashword is $10,000 if solved on the first clue, $5000 on the second, and $2500 on the third. The End Game is tiered. The first try is worth $10,000. The second time is worth $25,000, then $50,000, $75,000, $100,000. However, if the champion has won the End Game every time, the fifth time the prize is worth $250,000. The eighties theme is still used.
-
PYL: ... Top amounts are $10,000/$12,000/$13,000/$15,000.
Super Password: ... The Cashword is $10,000 if solved on the first clue, $5000 on the second, and $2500 on the third. The End Game is tiered. The first try is worth $10,000. The second time is worth $25,000, then $50,000, $75,000, $100,000. However, if the champion has won the End Game every time, the fifth time the prize is worth $250,000.
I'm missing my Matthew Lesko meme. Anyone have a copy handy?
The eighties theme is still used.
I doubt they could afford it at this point. Maybe a production staffer's nephew could whip something up on a Casio SK-1.
-
I like your idea a whole lot but how do you ensure that the strongest link stays around? Do they also have immunity in each round?
You'd need to have someone keeping track of the stats, which I figured someone would already be doing.
Far as the voting is concerned: I wouldn't think you'd have to switch up the voting to ensure the strongest link stays around. If I remember, most matches didn't see a really strong player eliminated until the double money round; ergo, instead of putting him at the mercy of two relatively weaker players, reward him for playing well throughout the game.
-
I like your idea a whole lot but how do you ensure that the strongest link stays around? Do they also have immunity in each round?
I have an issue doing anything with the strongest link until the methodology is changed from number of correct answers to highest percentage of questions answered correctly. Tiebreaker would be the lowest average time it took the individuals to answer all their questions in the round.
Far too often the strongest link was simply the person who started the round because they got the most opportunities to answer questions.
-
I notice that nobody who has said "Introduce more money into the game" has said why that will improve the situation, much less how Super Password can absorb a $250,000 hit. I know it's not really "just one thing" but hear me out:
Nick Arcade: The game would become College Bowl-ish. Ditch the opening face-off and the map. A toss-up visual puzzle from the library is played and whoever solves it scores 25 points, then goes over to the Video Challenge arena to play a game for more points. Round two would increase the stakes and decide the winner. Two things that bothered me as a youth is that the map was random and the Goal rarely hit, and the Video Challenge should have been the star of the show rather than a side-quest.
-
Here are my thoughts:
Body Language - give the contestant the option of acting out or guessing in the bonus round.
Family Feud - raise it to $10 a point in the Fast Money round if they don't win the big money. It's been $5 a point since 1976.
Weakest Link - in the final round, the loser gets 10% of the winning amount
Funny You Should Ask - raise the amount to $10,000. For 2018, $5,000 seems very cheap for a top prize - even for a Byron Allen show.
Since we're not allowed to suggest host changes, I'll stop here.
-
Weakest Link - in the final round, the loser gets 10% of the winning amount
And by doing so, the show loses one of its trademarks--that losers go home with nothing. To Mark's point: I think this would require that Alphabetics is either played for $5,000 or $10,000 every day, or the jackpot grows less quickly.
I would be fine with axing Cashword. Perhaps you could raise jackpots by $2,500 to slow things down and/or reset the jackpot when a champion is defeated.
-
would be fine with axing Cashword. Perhaps you could raise jackpots by $2,500 to slow things down and/or reset the jackpot when a champion is defeated.
I'm always a proponent of "new champion, new jackpot." And by golly, I enjoy the break that Cashword provides.
-
Merv Griffin's Crosswords: instead of one giant puzzle, I would've broken either broken it down into sections (say, four quadrants), or each round simply has a small puzzle of 10-15 words, perhaps following a theme. The bonus round would've been its own puzzle, with a set number of words. While this is now the "Crossfire" round from Cross-Wits, it at least avoids the inconsistent number of questions for each day's bonus round.
I know it says just one change (sorry), but ditch the Spoilers concept, and use a format similar to Face the Music or Top Card: three contestants, down to two, the winner plays a returning champion, for the chance to go to the final puzzle. That way, no last second snipes from a Spoiler.
-
Merv Griffin's Crosswords: instead of one giant puzzle, I would've broken either broken it down into sections (say, four quadrants), or each round simply has a small puzzle of 10-15 words, perhaps following a theme. The bonus round would've been its own puzzle, with a set number of words. While this is now the "Crossfire" round from Cross-Wits, it at least avoids the inconsistent number of questions for each day's bonus round.
I know it says just one change (sorry)
You're absolved--it was such a horrible mess it would take several changes just to get its head above water.
-
Merv Griffin's Crosswords: instead of one giant puzzle, I would've broken either broken it down into sections (say, four quadrants), or each round simply has a small puzzle of 10-15 words, perhaps following a theme. The bonus round would've been its own puzzle, with a set number of words. While this is now the "Crossfire" round from Cross-Wits, it at least avoids the inconsistent number of questions for each day's bonus round.
I know it says just one change (sorry)
You're absolved--it was such a horrible mess it would take several changes just to get its head above water.
I figured a show like that benefits from a complete overhaul. If I can think of one good flaw that needs fixing, I'll be back. :P
-
Agreed. MG Crosswords could have started with 4 players, lowest cash player at first break eliminated. The top two players face off, with the player in 3rd place acting as the only spoiler. Whichever players are at the two scoring podiums at the end of that segment face off in the third period, then the winner goes on to the bonus.
-
Why have a fourth player who is just going to be cut down after one segment? The spoiler element didn't add anything. If the show had a competent host and writing that is challenging but not brutal (cf: ESNE) then you've got it made.
-
Agreed. MG Crosswords could have started with 4 players, lowest cash player at first break eliminated. The top two players face off, with the player in 3rd place acting as the only spoiler. Whichever players are at the two scoring podiums at the end of that segment face off in the third period, then the winner goes on to the bonus.
My thing here is it still presents the biggest flaw so many of us had with the show: the spoiler can stand at his or her podium, not say a word until literally the last question, and swoop in to go to the championship round. That's hyperbole of course, but it still allows someone to win without doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I know Merv died about a month before the premiere, but I wonder was the entire season in the can when he passed? I also wonder how involved was he during the development process in early-2007?
-
By cutting it down to only one spoiler, and one who had to have earned some cash for the right to be the lone spoiler, that took away the idea that one last minute answer by a previously silent spoiler would win the entire game. Here, there's only a spoiler in round two. True, a spoiler could answer at the last second in round two and go on to the third and final round, but there would be no spoiler in the third round. Best player in the head-to-head wins and goes on to the bonus. To address Travis, it's that the game starts with 4 players, each having an equal chance. Which two will face off for the chance at the bonus? Other games of that era had no problems with dumping low scorers, so Merv just jumped on the bandwagon. IIRC, even the '78-'79 NBC reboot of Jeopardy! had the low player eliminated after the first board. I agree that the whole spoiler concept stunk as they did it, but it was at least an attempt to keep it from being a CrossWits clone.
-
YDS! '78: Each celebrity begins with a value of $100. Every time the contestant does not guess the name based on the clue a celebrity the celebrity's value goes up $50. The gives a contestant a dilemma of whether to choose a celebrity who has a good chance of giving me a good clue but won't be worth much or gamble on getting an obscure clue and getting a decent payoff. The goal is still to get to $500.
-
YDS! '78: Each celebrity begins with a value of $100. Every time the contestant does not guess the name based on the clue a celebrity the celebrity's value goes up $50. The gives a contestant a dilemma of whether to choose a celebrity who has a good chance of giving me a good clue but won't be worth much or gamble on getting an obscure clue and getting a decent payoff. The goal is still to get to $500.
"We're looking for a fictional character. Bob, it's your turn...holy Christ, Rex Reed is up to $350. Jesus you suck at this game, Rex."
-
If Pointless ever came to the US, let the team with the lowest score in each round earn $100, $250 for the Head to Head winners, and $500 goes to any team who gets a pointless answer in addition to adding $500 to the jackpot. No budget-busting giveaways here, just a little reward for good play along the way.
-
Agreed. MG Crosswords could have started with 4 players, lowest cash player at first break eliminated. The top two players face off, with the player in 3rd place acting as the only spoiler. Whichever players are at the two scoring podiums at the end of that segment face off in the third period, then the winner goes on to the bonus.
My thing here is it still presents the biggest flaw so many of us had with the show: the spoiler can stand at his or her podium, not say a word until literally the last question, and swoop in to go to the championship round. That's hyperbole of course, but it still allows someone to win without doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I know Merv died about a month before the premiere, but I wonder was the entire season in the can when he passed? I also wonder how involved was he during the development process in early-2007?
If the Wiki article on MGC is to be believed, it says that Merv worked on the pilot and the "first week of series production" before his passing. It also mentions that the pilot involved contestants "building a cash jackpot" that could be won at the end.
My one memory of MGC was an episode where the two players in control ended the game in a tie. A tiebreaker clue was then played. Certainly, only those two players would be eligible to play it, right? Nope -- one of the spoilers got it right and advanced to the bonus.
A similar flaw occurred on Nickelodeon's Make the Grade. You can hypothetically fail to answer anything in the Q and A portion, but if you win the final Fire Drill (physical challenge) and seize control of the leading player's desk, you win and advance to the bonus round. I recall one game where a contestant answered all of one question (the opponents answered a combined 20 or so), but managed to win the final Fire Drill and won the game. He then proceeded to answer 0 or 1 questions correct in the bonus game.
Yes, I realize Make the Grade is a targeted to children, and "Nick kids" likely won't watch straight Q and A games. But perhaps give the Fire Drill winner a number of "bonus boxes" to add to their total. Help them on the path to the lead, but don't outright hand them the lead, particularly if they are down, say, 15 boxes or so.
JD
-
Well this bothered me as a 10-year-old so I wouldn't totally discount the minds of children.
-
Perhaps the Fire Drill should have been worth a bonus prize rather than usurping a coveted desk. I also think they could have lopped off a category and grade level to move the goal line a little closer.
I recall that there was a period where Get the Picture jettisoned the physical tasks that would be round two Power Surges and they were replaced by either more visual puzzles or fun with the Videowriter and The teams would move to center stage to play the mini-games and that represented all of the movement onstage during the main game.
-
For the MtG Fire Drill, 1st Place could’ve been for the right to steal one grade and one subject from another player, while 2nd place won the right to steal one or the other.
-
"We're looking for a fictional character. Bob, it's your turn...holy Christ, Rex Reed is up to $350. Jesus you suck at this game, Rex."
Look, celebrities didn't mind being rated 99:1 on "Celebrity Sweepstakes" so they probably won't mind having their values rise during a game. Besides, think of the ovation a celebrity will get by finally giving the one good clue that lets a contestant come from behind to win the game.
-
The Joker's Wild - If the challenger spins 3 Jokers and answers correctly, the champion should have still gotten one final spin to try to do the same thing.
Card Sharks (later NBC and all Eubanks and Rafferty run), make the Big Bet a no push rule to add a bit more drama to the Big Bet.
Password Plus (one thing Super Password got right), any illegal clue would make the bonus just be $100 per word, not $4,000 for one illegal clue.
Family Feud - They upped the amount to $20,000 for Fast Money, couldn't they at least pay $10 per point, or why not $25 per point even?
Let's Make A Deal (Brady) - Still have 2 players going for the Big Deal instead of just one.
Wheel Of Fortune - Bring back returning champions for up to 3 nights, unless they win the $1,000,000.
-
Look, celebrities didn't mind being rated 99:1 on "Celebrity Sweepstakes" so they probably won't mind having their values rise during a game. Besides, think of the ovation a celebrity will get by finally giving the one good clue that lets a contestant come from behind to win the game.
...and then you might as well replace the celebrity with their press photo for the rest of the week, because ain't nobody calling on Rex Reed for a paltry $100 after that.
(Now, what if you Puerto Rico it and add the $50 to anyone who didn't get called on in the previous round instead?)
-
Greed: Make the set even darker for seven-figure questions.
US Temptation: Add the lot to the possibility of prizes.
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire: Add a special music bed for the $1 Million question.
Twenty-One 2000: Contestants play for a certain dollar amount per point margin of victory, with ties increasing the stakes.
The Wall: Shower couples who win $1 Million or more with confetti. (It's a rare enough occurrence to warrant it.)
Deal or No Deal: Allow contestants to make an offer to the banker once during the game.
-
Deal or No Deal: Allow contestants to make an offer to the banker once during the game.
Perhaps one of my favorite things that I came up with on this board came about in a thread about the short-lived show Pawnography--the fact that Rick Harrison and the day's winner get to haggle over the buyout to call off the Best of Ten Test of Knowledge amused me and I thought it would work beautifully on Deal or No Deal.
Twenty-one should have had a static prize of $25,000 per game, and I don't mind the idea where everyone on the YDS panel gets their own little bank though you would have to nuke the idea that everyone has to be called on in turn. It would add a little bit of strategy to a game that doesn't have much. To the point about Wheel of Fortune, I would love to see them bring back Friday Finals as a concept since game show contestants want to play again if they can and it allows them to bury the million dollar prize.
-
To Al's point about celebrities not minding being pegged as a 99:1 dullard, I don't know--I think I would take at least a little offense at the implication.
-
On MG, if you choose Rex Reed for Super Match and you match him, it's worth $1 million.
-
I notice that nobody who has said "Introduce more money into the game" has said why that will improve the situation, much less how Super Password can absorb a $250,000 hit. I know it's not really "just one thing" but hear me out:
Nick Arcade: The game would become College Bowl-ish. Ditch the opening face-off and the map. A toss-up visual puzzle from the library is played and whoever solves it scores 25 points, then goes over to the Video Challenge arena to play a game for more points. Round two would increase the stakes and decide the winner. Two things that bothered me as a youth is that the map was random and the Goal rarely hit, and the Video Challenge should have been the star of the show rather than a side-quest.
I’m in complete agreement with your gripes, but doesn’t that just mean it becomes Starcade with video puzzles?
At the very least, the map board should have been made smaller.
-
On MG, if you choose Rex Reed for Super Match and you match him, it's worth $1 million.
So there was a reason why Rex Reed never did MG.../s.
/I literally snorted coffee reading this.
//After a couple bad days, I really needed the laugh. Thanks!
-
I’m in complete agreement with your gripes, but doesn’t that just mean it becomes Starcade with video puzzles?
At the very least, the map board should have been made smaller.
My gripe about the map is that there is no knowledge about whether one square is going to be good, neutral or a bear trap. I posit that the Money Machine from Dream House, the big board from Click, the Magic 8-Ball from Peer Pressure or even Reach for the Stars from Ruckus would be an improvement if the Enemy element was scuttled.
The UK game show "Steal" showed two teams of two the contents of a four by four grid and then rotated it either ninety or 180 degrees--this too would be an improvement.
-
Card Sharks: Adopt the "Push Rule" in the Money Cards
Temptation US: Make it more like the Australian version
-
If I'm doing anything with Temptation it's getting back to the basics. Maybe do a quick speed round in the middle in place of Knock Off and just make everything else be straight questions the last speed round, which I would lengthen but keep the stakes as they were. You could leave the Fame Game alone and maybe fit one more in (this really didn't bug me).
-
Card Sharks: Adopt the "Push Rule" in the Money Cards
I'm pretty sure this was done on the Eubanks and Rafferty versions.
-
Card Sharks: Adopt the "Push Rule" in the Money Cards
I'm pretty sure this was done on the Eubanks and Rafferty versions.
It was, and also on the Perry version for the last year.
-
If I'm doing anything with Temptation it's getting back to the basics. Maybe do a quick speed round in the middle in place of Knock Off and just make everything else be straight questions the last speed round, which I would lengthen but keep the stakes as they were. You could leave the Fame Game alone and maybe fit one more in (this really didn't bug me).
There's a couple of points I want to make: the show could have gotten back a minute or so of time from Super Knock-off that they could have used for a Fame Game or a mid-show Sprint Round.
The thing about the Fame Game board in conjunction with the Gift Shop is that there are six chances for everyone to take something home. It may not be something big or something that sets our hearts aflame but it's more than lots of love and fond memories. (To piggyback off of your point, if they didn't do the Fame Game board I would have had three cards--one with a money card, one with a prize and one with ready cash.)
Here's the other thing--Sale of the Century manages to have comedy, suspense, glamour and interesting questions all in one package. Temptation failed at every turn. The Gift Shop was always the same as opposed to the jumping off point for a sketch or moderately clever way to show off the prize. While we're discussing either little rule changes or sweeping ideas, I think that Temptation needed to have a directorial mandate to look like something else.
-
Everything about Temptation USA was pretty half-baked, as if the producers skimmed through a Youtube clip of the Aussie version and took it from there. Although it seemed like a mish-mash of random game show elements, I didn't mind the question/puzzle portion. What bothered me more than anything was the rule that made it mandatory to retire after five days. If you didn't have enough money for the car, too bad, enjoy your luxury vacation.
Not that I'd pass up a trip, it just seems like bad television to make the contestant accept the second level prize because they couldn't "afford" the big one. So yeah, have a champion play until defeated or until he or she wins enough games/cash to buy the car. Or a cash jackpot. Or The Lot.
/Would've been fine with a $25-50K jackpot
//Would also ditch the QVC-style segments
///At least the set was nice
-
Not that I'd pass up a trip, it just seems like bad television to make the contestant accept the second level prize because they couldn't "afford" the big one.
I think there are lots of reasons to dislike TEMPTATION, but I can't get behind you on this one. I think there is nothing wrong with the rule being "You have five chances to earn as much as you can and buy the most valuable prize you can afford."
-
$ale of the Century or Temptation:
Let winners buy something in the big sale AND come back the next day.
This would make the end-of-show decision more interesting. They have to win more games for the grand prize--that's the risk--but they're more likely to buy the catamaran if they don't have to pass up everything. Players retain any Temptation Dollars left over, and the host could lower the price or add bonuses to coax them to buy as in the front game. Perhaps farther up the ladder there's a bribe to leave, say $25,000 if the car is $60,000, and once they get to the car (the grand prize), they buy it and leave or risk it to add the lucite briefcase of cash.
One other small thing: Back in the big sale, winners get a refund of what they spent on bargains in the front. You want them to buy to keep the game close, and this removes a reason not to.
-
One other small thing: Back in the big sale, winners get a refund of what they spent on bargains in the front. You want them to buy to keep the game close, and this removes a reason not to.
While technically true, I would challenge you to find the contestant who said "You know, if not for the possibility that this $15 might keep me from being able to afford the car (should I win the game and discounting all of the chaos between now and the end of said game, AND the potential extra $250 I can rack up in the endgame), I would totally pull the trigger on this Gucci handbag." I guarantee you 99% of the time the thought process stopped at "should I win the game." That 1% is not worth the extra complication.
-
I think there is nothing wrong with the rule being "You have five chances to earn as much as you can and buy the most valuable prize you can afford."
Well, when you put it like that... ;)
Playing Armchair Producer: if we go with the 5-day rule, I throw in a bonus game where the day's champ can add on a little cash playing some sort of mini-game. I haven't seen the show since 2008, so I dunno if they already did that, but it sounds familiar. Maybe double the stakes on the fifth day?
I just seem to remember the match would end before the 20-minute mark, and then there was a really long rundown of the prizes...not unlike the early years of the Perry version.
-
While technically true, I would challenge you to find the contestant who said "You know, if not for the possibility that this $15 might keep me from being able to afford the car (should I win the game and discounting all of the chaos between now and the end of said game, AND the potential extra $250 I can rack up in the endgame), I would totally pull the trigger on this Gucci handbag."
Yeah, good point.
-
Playing Armchair Producer: if we go with the 5-day rule, I throw in a bonus game where the day's champ can add on a little cash playing some sort of mini-game. I haven't seen the show since 2008, so I dunno if they already did that, but it sounds familiar. Maybe double the stakes on the fifth day?
Super Knock-off allowed the champion to add up to $250 to the shopping account every day; but it was usually unsatisfying and rarely exciting.
I like the idea of five $20 questions each day, and becoming $100 questions on the fifth-day, but you have to say what you're going for and you either reach it or lose that extra money. The problem is that the show's casting and quiz material really precludes anything interesting or difficult.
-
Press Your Luck: every question is a toss-up. Who rings in with the correct answer first, gets the spin and plays/passes it immediately. When the spin and all subsequent additional spins are done for, it's time for the next question. Keep going until the allotted time for the episode is elapsed.
Variations:
-Some questions are "written" like on Second Chance, so that multiple players at once can receive spins.
-Some questions give more than one spin.
-Some questions give a bonus prize in addition to the spin(s). The prize may or may not be guaranteed against Whammies.
-In addition to questions, there could be mini-games for the contestants to play.
-
Press Your Luck: every question is a toss-up. Who rings in with the correct answer first, gets the spin and plays/passes it immediately. When the spin and all subsequent additional spins are done for, it's time for the next question. Keep going until the allotted time for the episode is elapsed.
Variations:
-Some questions are "written" like on Second Chance, so that multiple players at once can receive spins.
-Some questions give more than one spin.
Ignoring the issue of staging (i.e., the audience is in the background for the whole episode) I really like the idea of rolling the board after every question and having all three players able to write an answer. It gives a bigger sense of gravitas to the questions and we don't end up with "the third player" sitting there for the last few minutes like a bump on a log because we all know damn well he has little to no chance of winning with his $400 and two Whammies.
-
...we don't end up with "the third player" sitting there for the last few minutes like a bump on a log because we all know damn well he has little to no chance of winning with his $400 and two Whammies.
It sucks for them, but if the other two have a close game going, who cares?
-
Maybe they shoul$ have pressed harder.
-
WRT Nick Arcade, I vaguely remember being told that teams were either directed or just figured out themselves that you weren't supposed to direct Mikey to the goal, because that way you hit more squares on the board over the course of the round. Since they moved him to the goal when time was called anyway, there was no reason to do it yourself.
Anyway, my proposed changes:
High Rollers: If a contestant has an insurance marker and makes a bad roll, they turn the marker in and the turn ends there.
-OR-
High Rollers: If a contestant passes the dice and the other player makes a good roll, the dice immediately pass back to the original player and we keep passing back and forth until the game ends. Either way, there's less incentive to pass at the first sign of danger.
Monopoly: Questions are done in the style of Split Second, Countdown Round. Last correct answer collects each monopoly in sequence. Property collection now gets done in eight questions instead of 22+, and we get to spend more than 90 seconds going around the board.
Friend or Foe/Golden Balls/Any show with the Prisoner's Dilemma gimmick: ditch the "Split/Steal" mechanic. Replace with Rock-Paper-Scissors. Both parties split the pot if the throw is a draw; otherwise resolve as normal.
-
Since they moved him to the goal when time was called anyway, there was no reason to do it yourself.
If you did it yourself, the goal question wasn’t a toss-up.
-
High Rollers: If a contestant passes the dice and the other player makes a good roll, the dice immediately pass back to the original player and we keep passing back and forth until the game ends. Either way, there's less incentive to pass at the first sign of danger.
This has the same problem as your original fix on Luck of the Draw* from way back when: players now have the incentive to tank the question (to force the opponent to roll or pass-with-passback).
*The Luck of the Draw rule was different: if A passed to B and B successfully placed a card, B could force A to complete the entire row. That rule has more obvious problems than the one discussed for High Rollers.
-
That also means that each game of High Rollers will always start with one toss-up question but no more (unless it deadballs) because at that point the dice go back and forth until someone blows it.
-
That also means that each game of High Rollers will always start with one toss-up question but no more (unless it deadballs) because at that point the dice go back and forth until someone blows it.
I think I understand Loogaroo's proposal to be that the turn alternates only if the winner of the tossup passes. If the winner of the tossup rolls, the next question will be a tossup.
-
That also means that each game of High Rollers will always start with one toss-up question but no more (unless it deadballs) because at that point the dice go back and forth until someone blows it.
I think I understand Loogaroo's proposal to be that the turn alternates only if the winner of the tossup passes. If the winner of the tossup rolls, the next question will be a tossup.
Correct. If you roll of own accord and it's a safe roll, we go to another question. It only goes to sudden death if one player passes the dice to the other.
-
High Rollers: If a contestant passes the dice and the other player makes a good roll, the dice immediately pass back to the original player and we keep passing back and forth until the game ends. Either way, there's less incentive to pass at the first sign of danger.
What if when the other player makes a good roll, the original player has to roll once but if it's a good roll, it goes to another question. There's the same risk, but then questions don't go out the window.