The Game Show Forum > The Big Board

Devising new game shows

(1/2) > >>

davidbod:
Good to see people on here interested in devising new formats, although on the other hand its sad that many people appear to be making the same mistakes time and again.

Even if a format is well explained and seemingly \"do-able\", that's still only the start of your troubles. For example, and apologies in advance to the creator, let me take Loogaroo's Strikeout (http://www.loogslair.com/gameshow/strikout.html). I really like the way that Strikeout is explained and presented and, in theory, it looks like a workable show.

However, there are some bugs that I can forsee. One of them is that potentially the entire first three rounds could last just seven questions. Yes, it's unlikely but you need a plan B. You can always cut a show short, but it's very difficult to stretch it long.

Striekout would also greatly benefit from a running order. I'm convinced that many paper formats would unravel as soon as you tried to work out the numbers for how long each segment would run for. It's surprising what little proportion of an overall programme is actually taken up with the game play itself (due to advertising time pressures, this may not be the case in the US)

Some sample questions would help in this format and many many others I've read. Questions aren't just questions. They could have different phrasing, different topics, different difficulties, different formats and test different skills. What's going to make your questions different from any others? Why not devise a few to give people the right idea?

I also wonder \"where's the funny?\" In the first few rounds, contestants are locking in answers to an A/B/C board. We're not hearing their inner thoughts, their anxiety of getting the answer wrong, or any form of tactics. Programmes such as 100% (sort-of ripped off by Inquizition in the US) work purely because they are so stripped down and the emphasis is on play-along. Having 2-man teams in game shows is very useful because there's much better potential for conflict, argument and talking through the question. Games involving single people need to be much faster to keep up the play-along-at-home aspect.

Although Loog's format doesn't fall into this trap, there are many, many formats from the US that I've seen which are beyond anal in the numbers and figures department. For example, why not say \"they win a car\" rather than \"they win a car valued between $20,000 to $24,000\". I mean, surely the exact value of the prize will depend on who you pitch it to? And are you saying they should win a car just because that's what all the old US game shows used to do or is there a genuine point behind it?

I hope that's been of use. If you're serious about developing game shows, I've written a 50,000-word report on the subject, a link to which can be found in my .sig below.

Best wishes

David

SplitSecond:
Another important element to consider is that all good games have an objective.  \"Be ahead when time is called\" is a pretty sorry excuse for an objective, but given the false pressures on games to be self-contained here in the U.S., it also seems to be a pretty popular choice.  Anybody who can devise a game with a meaningful objective that addresses the timing concerns of today's TV climate is well on their way.  While the recent Card Sharks was not time-based, I feel its objective fell a little short on the \"meaningful\" side of things (\"Happen to be the person in control after the turn of the final card\" - who cares?  Obviously America didn't.)

Another thing is that, to potential buyers, your rules sheet is only a small piece of the puzzle.  What makes your show stand out from all the rest?  In an ideal situation, your show would establish some sort of brand identity for itself, if you're not already being lent brand identity by developing a TV format for an existing computer game or board game.  In fact, I would consider that much more important than an air-tight set of rules (unfortunately).  If you can get the general public (or, in more relevant terms, the members of this board) to start referring to your game by its title - or, more likely, \"The game with the...\" or \"The game about...\" - then you just might have something.

I'll jump to what I imagine will be a controversial example.  Second Chance ran for just over four months in 1977 and has not been rerun since.  Press Your Luck ran for three years and has been almost omnipresent in reruns since.

If anybody thinks that the difference in longevity can be attributed to them having changed the question format or having made all of the game board spaces vary every second or two, then I've got a killer question format I want to sell you, and I'll make it a real bargain.

Indeed, what Second Chance really lacked was a brand identity.  If I asked you, \"What was the name of that game with the devils?\", and limited you to one answer only, it would probably be \"The Joker's Wild\".  However, if I just merely said \"Big bucks, no whammys, STOP!\", you'd know exactly what I was talking about, even if you couldn't come up with the title of the show.  Press Your Luck is \"that game with the animated whammys and the big flashy colorful game board\".  Can you describe your show that uniquely and that succinctly?

PeterMarshallFan:
Dave, is that your book that's on the UK Game Shows site? Just wondering.

davidbod:
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Jul 13 2003, 09:59 PM\']Dave, is that your book that's on the UK Game Shows site? Just wondering.[/quote]
Yes indeedy.

PeterMarshallFan:
Well then, major props to you. I'll read your piece and hopefully my next proposal will be much better. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page