Chain Reaction

[beatlefreak84]

Hi everyone,

So, after reading the many negative reviews of GSN's new "Chain Reaction" (being GSN-less out in Corn Country, I haven't been able to see it yet, but I'm kind of anxious to just to see what all the hubbub is about), I keep noticing that a lot of people are claiming the Cullen version as the epitome of the CR trilogy.

Now, I've seen both Cullen's and Edwards' versions, and, personally, I didn't care for Cullen's version all that much.  The scoring system really bothered me (why should a 9-letter word be more than a 4-letter word, especially if the latter isn't as obvious?), and some of the celebrities annoyed me, seeming to be more about getting in some quick jokes as opposed to playing the game seriously.

As a result, I really enjoyed Edwards' version (well, the team version; I think that the switch to individual players was stupid!); yes, there was the good ol' Canadian cheapness, but I thought that the scoring system was much better executed, making each word a flat amount of points, and switching the game to all civilians was a big plus; it meant you had four people excited to play the game, and, more over, seriously playing the game.  I also really liked that challenge option; if used wisely, it could really make a game for a team.

My question is to those of you who think Cullen's version is the best:  what about the Edwards version do you think makes it inferior to Cullen's version?

Notice I'm not mentioning Emmons...sorry, Don...

Anthony

[TLEberle]

My question is to those of you who think Cullen's version is the best:  what about the Edwards version do you think makes it inferior to Cullen's version?

"I'd like to give a letter to my opponents under 'CRACKPOT,' Geoff."

(Not a comment on your post, that's my pick. Take your letter and guess. None of this passing/challenging weirdness, thanks.)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'126270\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:36 PM\']
My question is to those of you who think Cullen's version is the best:  what about the Edwards version do you think makes it inferior to Cullen's version?
[/quote]
Didn't like the flat scoring. Saw no reason why the final word (which should be easier, since you have a clue above and below) in a chain should be worth MORE points. Canadian cheapness. Chyroned board. Uninteresting bonus game. Chinzy set (which I suppose is a subset of Canadian cheapness).

Shall I continue? I could probably come up with more. This was just off the top of my head.

[MikeK]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'126270\' date=\'Aug 4 2006, 12:36 AM\']My question is to those of you who think Cullen's version is the best:  what about the Edwards version do you think makes it inferior to Cullen's version?[/quote]
You mentioned it--the general cheapness of the show.  If it was a horrible concept, it wouldn't have lasted five years.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126273\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'126270\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:36 PM\']
My question is to those of you who think Cullen's version is the best:  what about the Edwards version do you think makes it inferior to Cullen's version?
[/quote]
Didn't like the flat scoring. Saw no reason why the final word (which should be easier, since you have a clue above and below) in a chain should be worth MORE points. [/quote] Interesting that you mention this. Each scoring system makes sense. If you were going to have each word be worth less and less as you go on (First word 50, and each word 10 less until you fill the chain), then you run into the problem that the game will be decided before you get to the end. I certainly have no problem with each word being worth a point, or each letter.

Canadian cheapness.

As a kid, I noticed that $3,000 seemed really low to start out a growing jackpot. But it was an interesting game, so I didn't care. It would make zero difference to me if the jackpot started at $1,000; $5,000; or $10,000. The game is good.

Chyroned board.

Rule Number One of game show production should be: Your game show will have a big board somewhere. If your game has no need for a big board, find a new game. It doesn't matter if that board is full of light bulbs or video monitors, just have something as the centerpiece.

Uninteresting bonus game.

Here's where I jump off of the bandwagon. If you're gonna have a solo game, there were worse things to do. It logically follows from the front game.

EDITED to remove a misinterpreted remark from a friend. Mea culpa, my bad, and I apologize.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'126286\' date=\'Aug 4 2006, 12:56 AM\']

Chyroned board.

Rule Number One of game show production should be: Your game show will have a big board somewhere. If your game has no need for a big board, find a new game. It doesn't matter if that board is full of light bulbs or video monitors, just have something as the centerpiece.[/quote]

My version of is that the contestants should never be looking off into the untold distance--what they are looking at should always be established and part of the set.  I guess the later years of the Canadian "Chain" with the monitor we saw in the opening is acceptable, but it never seemed on the set to be where the players were looking.  No matter what you think of the female sidekick being added to "Lingo," at least along with it came an actual monitor on the set for the players to look at rather than out there in limbo.