Author Topic: Chain Reaction... (Read 51243 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #165 on:** September 18, 2006, 03:46:17 PM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'131968\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:32 PM\']
Do something like Lingo does: a buzz-in tie-breaker. My thought was to display a normal speedchain; whoever buzzes in first wins the game, but, if you buzz in and are wrong, the other team wins the game. No conferences are allowed, but add a letter to the words after five or so seconds if no one has a guess.
[/quote]
Great idea, but now you've added a lockout system to the cost of the set, and one that won't even see the light of day more often than not. Yeah, Lingo has one with the same issues, but it's pretty clear that CR is operating on a lower budget than Lingo is.

abric · « **Reply #166 on:** September 18, 2006, 10:20:25 PM »

Here is what it should have been:

Round 1: $100/word, the fifth word is worth $200
Round 2: $200/word, the fifth word is worth $400
Round 3: $300/word, the fifth word is worth $200

If there is only one letter left in the word, it is not given. It must be solved to get the money. If no one answers correctly after both teams go through their players, the word is shown and credit is not given.

Round 4-1: $500/word -or-
Round 4-2: $500/word and increases by $500 (fifth word is worth $2,500)

The winning team keeps their money, the losing team gets $500.

Instant Reaction
Each correct answer is worth $100. If the 2 players don't form a proper sentence or uses 2 words, a 'cuckoo' sound is heard, and they move on to the next word. 5 correct answers, doubles the team's winnings. (7 correct answers, triples the team's winnings.) Solving all 10 gives the team $10,000.

TLEberle · « **Reply #167 on:** September 18, 2006, 10:46:31 PM »

Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has: no lockouts, that goofy betting round, the silly double/triple bonus game, a very planned amount of game time. It would be easy to scrap the whole thing, award 10 points per word, a 5-point bonus for word five, and play the bonus game for $10,000. Since the producers made everything harder, it becomes that much more difficult to plan for the tie game, even if it happens once out of a 13-week run.

What I've found out is that Chain Reaction is one of the most poorly planned game shows in a long while, at least from the game side. The game builds up momentum only to screech to a halt with the betting round, then we watch teams multiply their money by one in the bonus round...(I suppose that's also the doings of the contestant coordinators, but that's another issue entirely.)

So I'm left to think that the whole game was thrown together in a thirty minute meeting while Michael Davies was out pitching another show somewhere, because you can't get that many things wrong without intended malice at some point.

Yes, I realize that I'm reading very far into this, but I expect the game to be decent, especially for such a good format. And besides, that's the point of the forum, right? So there.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #168 on:** September 18, 2006, 10:49:45 PM »

abric: Assuming you typoed "$600" in round 3, that's a split of either $6100 (with round 4-1) or $11100 (round 4-2). That gives the winning team, at absolute minimum, either $3100 or $5600. Thus, getting 10 would *lower* your final total in almost all cases.

Anyway, that makes even the worst winning totals around $4000, with a very large number of payouts at or near 5 digits. No way is GSN going to foot that bill.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #169 on:** September 19, 2006, 10:42:23 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'132055\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:46 PM\']
Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has[/quote]
I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:

"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."

Don Howard · « **Reply #170 on:** September 19, 2006, 02:57:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'131929\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 11:18 AM\']
"Myrtle, Chain Reaction's coming on. Go get the calculator so we can enjoy it."
[/quote]
Part of the fun (for me) with Two For The Money and Password All-Stars was finding out through the host or the announcer what the totals were for the teams. "Three correct answers at $135 an answer..."
But the 20th century was a more patient age.

abric · « **Reply #171 on:** September 19, 2006, 09:32:50 PM »

It would at least make watching the game more interesting.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #172 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:23:34 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'132111\' date=\'Sep 19 2006, 10:42 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'132055\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:46 PM\']
Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has[/quote]I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:

"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."[/quote]
Then perhaps there's a bigger question out there, like "Can the concept of Chain Reaction be a good format at all?"

clemon79 · « **Reply #173 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:59:49 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'132245\' date=\'Sep 20 2006, 07:23 PM\']
Then perhaps there's a bigger question out there, like "Can the concept of Chain Reaction be a good format at all?"
[/quote]
Wow.

TLEberle · « **Reply #174 on:** September 21, 2006, 12:19:08 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'132111\' date=\'Sep 19 2006, 07:42 AM\']I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:

"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."
[/quote]I doubt it. By 1980, Bob Stewart had built up heaps of credibility, so I would be way more forgiving of a game play hiccup (cf: Go) if Our Man Bob was in charge, than say if Stone-Stanley Productions brought out another insipid show. Now, since you've brought up some interesting points, I'll try to do what I can.

The thing about a point-per-letter is that it was elegant. You knew that each word was worth exactly that, and it provided for some uncertainty if a team was on 40 or more points; whether they could go out on that turn.

Sure, the contestant is penalized in gameplay for having a bad celebrity, but at BSP, they seemed to lean on the same people in rotation. I would happily put my $10,000 hopes in the hands of Debralee Scott and Nipsey Russell than whatever clods were on Pyramid starring Donny Osmond (I refuse to call it Donnymid out of principle). Even if ONE of your partners was a real thick-o, you could still win the game with the other one, and then maybe you get lucky and shlep that person to the other team.

And in the end, you get to be on TV, playing what's a really fun and interesting game; you get to hang out with four stars of the time and one bad ass host. And you have the chance to win $10,000 at the end of the game. I would happily take my chances with the celebrity draw for that.

I give Chain Reaction III a hard time because it has such an impressive forebear and it screwed up at almost every opportunity. Chain Reaction I was given the chance to shine, and while it was a short-lived show, it was a clever one, and what I saw of it on GSN; I enjoyed.

catnap1972 · « **Reply #175 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:37:04 PM »

Anyone care to explain WHAT IN THE HELL just happened (9/22)?!?!?

chad1m · « **Reply #176 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:57:21 PM »

Elaboration, please?

WilliamPorygon · « **Reply #177 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:12:29 PM »

A team got zero in the bonus round, because the question givers apparently had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do.

tvwxman · « **Reply #178 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:14:01 PM »

[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'132411\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:12 PM\']
A team got zero in the bonus round, because the question givers apparently had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do.
[/quote]
Example please? Or, better yet, Youtube clip please?

catnap1972 · « **Reply #179 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:18:23 PM »

For those who didn't see it--another first in CR history. The first ZERO in Instant Reaction (bonus round). It'd be one thing if the team actually tried but the guesser just couldn't get anything, but it was as if the team was flying blind (all of them) and had no clue at all how to play, and in fact the one guy tried several times to get them to stop the bonus game altogether ("I just can't do this!") after royally screwing up. They definitely seemed like one of those teams Moe (Train) was talking about where they didn't even bother practicing the bonus round, and instead made total asses of themselves.