Author Topic: The Best "Tweaked" Format... (Read 11019 times)

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #30 on:** November 04, 2005, 08:54:38 AM »

Quote

If a celebrity pair was quick enough on the buzzers, they could pretty much control the bulk of the game, whether or not their better halves would correctly buzz in off the clue word.

Well...that is a good point...and the week that James Brolin was on certainly is a good case in point. However, if you notice on the "story", or "buzz in" questions, more often than not they'd do the same question more than once. If the couple in the red section correctly matched the first time around, they'd repeat the question to give one of the other sections a chance. So, although a good couple could have more "control" over the game, the repeating of questions helped even things out a little.

Having said that, I'm surprised the celebrities could come up with stories so quickly. I've tried playing along from time to time, and I couldn't come up with anything that quickly.

uncamark · « **Reply #31 on:** November 04, 2005, 11:42:29 AM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Nov 4 2005, 08:54 AM\']

Quote

If a celebrity pair was quick enough on the buzzers, they could pretty much control the bulk of the game, whether or not their better halves would correctly buzz in off the clue word.

Well...that is a good point...and the week that James Brolin was on certainly is a good case in point. However, if you notice on the "story", or "buzz in" questions, more often than not they'd do the same question more than once. If the couple in the red section correctly matched the first time around, they'd repeat the question to give one of the other sections a chance. So, although a good couple could have more "control" over the game, the repeating of questions helped even things out a little.

Having said that, I'm surprised the celebrities could come up with stories so quickly. I've tried playing along from time to time, and I couldn't come up with anything that quickly.

[snapback]101329[/snapback]

[/quote]

It seemed to me that at a later point in the original format, there was a disclaimer stating something like "some celebrities were supplied with topics in advance"--guessing that one half of the couple was fed topics beforehand and the other wasn't. Surprising, especially considering that Goodson always boasted that he never fed material in advance to celebs on his shows ("WML?" and "TNTS" suggestions of "gambit" lines of questioning to certain panelists notwithstanding).

Jay Temple · « **Reply #32 on:** November 05, 2005, 01:17:32 AM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 10:47 PM\']A positive tweak for The $xx,000 Pyramid came with the arrival of The New $25,000 Pyramid on CBS in 1982 when tie-breakers were based on time if all 7 clues were solved. It was also nice that all players got a second shot at the front game just in case their celebrity partner was a dud.

[snapback]101300[/snapback]

[/quote]
Seconded, especially the second part. Add to that the change roughly midway through the NY years from having the celeb give on the third turn to giving them the choice. Pyramid is the only communication game show I can recall where they gave contestants any choice. (I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #33 on:** November 05, 2005, 01:52:26 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)

[snapback]101427[/snapback]

[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #34 on:** November 05, 2005, 03:18:48 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:52 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.
[/quote]

That works both ways, though. You're giving FABULOUS clues, and that BONEHEAD just can't come up with the words...you're just as screwed.

ChuckNet · « **Reply #35 on:** November 05, 2005, 09:51:28 PM »

Quote

I must respectfully disagree. I thought the buzz-in element and "One word or two?" was the only thing that kept Tattletales remotely interesting, and not just a carbon of TNG. If I wanna watch TNG (and I don't), I'll watch Bob, not Bert

Put me on the "clue word" bandwagon, as well...I liked that format, despite the flaws stated by Lemon and others...was more interesting, and the stories were often quite amusing.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

Jay Temple · « **Reply #36 on:** November 06, 2005, 02:02:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 03:18 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:52 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.
[/quote]

That works both ways, though. You're giving FABULOUS clues, and that BONEHEAD just can't come up with the words...you're just as screwed.

[snapback]101468[/snapback]

[/quote]
I understand what you mean, but to me it would be way less frustrating than never having a chance because your partner gave an illegal clue.

alfonzos · « **Reply #37 on:** November 08, 2005, 02:48:22 PM »

Concentration vs. Classic Concentration

Prefered the original thirty-section gameboard and puzzle design. Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. I didn't miss "Forfeits." Hated the colored rebus puzzles. No opinion concerning all the bonus rounds.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 08, 2005, 05:40:51 PM »

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #39 on:** November 08, 2005, 06:07:53 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 05:40 PM\'][quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?[/quote]

I believe he was mixing together the good and bad tweaks in his post.

zachhoran · « **Reply #40 on:** November 08, 2005, 07:43:23 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 05:40 PM\'][quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?

[snapback]101741[/snapback]

[/quote]

IIRC Classic Concentration was the only version to allow a Take card to be held onto rather than having to use it right away.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 08, 2005, 08:50:05 PM »

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 07:43 PM\']IIRC Classic Concentration was the only version to allow a Take card to be held onto rather than having to use it right away.

[snapback]101752[/snapback]

[/quote]

Exactamundo!!!

So whether or not your opponent had a good or a gag prize, you had to take it if it were the only thing they had, otherwise you would just "Take" another turn.

That is one of the reasons why they included gag gifts on the board -- you could forfeit a bad gift away without losing any good prizes.

Quick question on the Forfeit Card -- Regardless what you had or didn't have on your side of the board when you matched Forfeits, you never "forfeited" or lost your turn, Correct?

JohnTheGameMan · « **Reply #42 on:** November 08, 2005, 09:04:11 PM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 08:50 PM\'][Quick question on the Forfeit Card -- Regardless what you had or didn't have on your side of the board when you matched Forfeits, you never "forfeited" or lost your turn, Correct?

[snapback]101758[/snapback]

[/quote]
That is correct. If you did match the "forfeit one gift" and had no prizes to forfeit, you still were allowed to try and solve the puzzle and if not, your turn kept going.
On the Syndicated version, I remember there were no gag prizes, but smaller prizes such as "Root Beer" and "Hot Dogs" to forfeit.
BTW: If those who still have a home version (or for some, maybe more than one version) of Concentration, you can create your own gag prizes and make your own prizes to equal what they are worth today, this to make it a little bit more fun.

Author Topic: The Best "Tweaked" Format... (Read 11019 times)

uncamark