Camouflage

[PYLW]

So far, the show isn't that bad. I just question the difficulty. And the main game gets pretty bland and old after around the fifteen minute mark. I'd do horrible at this...I wonder how those who are good at these things thought about this show?

The bonus game is okay, I like the idea and concept of it. Roger Lodge is a good host, is at ease and seems to be having a good time.

I think the show is okay, but I wouldn't be able to sit through an hour of it five days a week.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[xavier45]

I really like this show. I am one of those people who hates overly excited contestants, so this is a good show for me. It does get a little quiet too though. But Roger is a great host. 100 times better than Dylan Lane is, that is for sure. He knows how to keep the game going and also add in a few jokes once in a while.

So I like this show. It isn't appointment television, but I will watch it whenever I have time. If I had to grade it I would give it a 7/10.

[JakeT]

[quote name=\'PYLW\' post=\'156552\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 06:37 PM\']
So far, the show isn't that bad. I just question the difficulty. And the main game gets pretty bland and old after around the fifteen minute mark. I'd do horrible at this...I wonder how those who are good at these things thought about this show?

The bonus game is okay, I like the idea and concept of it. Roger Lodge is a good host, is at ease and seems to be having a good time.

I think the show is okay, but I wouldn't be able to sit through an hour of it five days a week.
[/quote]

I hesitated to post my thoughts about the show 'cause I feared being seen as an illiterate doofus but I found the game to be just a bit too much on the tough side for me to enjoy it very much.  Plus, unless you remain glued to the TV set, you definitely can't enjoy it 'cause you have no way to play along at all.   And yes, the main game does get rather tedious very quickly.  I'd rate the bonus round "okay" at best as well.  And while I agree that Roger Lodge is a decent host, he must stop explaining how the clues relate to the answers after each correct answer given.  I figure that if an explanation is needed, the writing simply isn't crisp enough.  The clues and answers should almost always be obvious and self-explanatory once they are both revealed.  Kinda like when a joke isn't funny if the teller has to explain to you why it is just so damned funny.

Sorry GSN but I turned it off halfway through Monday's second episode and have no plans to return to it.   Guess I'm heading back to "HARDBALL" at 6PM central...

Jake

[urbanpreppie05]

It's a little bland, but an ok show.

The second episode was better.

[WilliamPorygon]

The game itself is okay, but it's too repetitive and gets boring fast.  I didn't really like the bonus round.  Solving a bunch of puzzles quickly just for a better chance of being able to solve another puzzle... I'd rather it was just another 5 in 60 speed round or something.

The set is too dark and millionaire-esque for my tastes.  Some of it is okay though.  Did the contestant backdrop and scoreboards (before the game started) remind anyone else of the Perry $otC podium?

The writing is by far the best part of the show.  I was expecting the puzzles to mostly be random strings of letters, so it was nice to see a lot of them start out as phrases and groups of (sometimes related) words.  Some of them were also clearly written with the intent of trying to trick the contestants into an obvious but wrong answer (like angel food cake).

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'156576\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 11:12 PM\']The set is too dark and millionaire-esque for my tastes.[/quote]Funny.  I got a Jeopardy vibe.  Especially that opening.

An hour of this may be a little too much, but it's definitely a B+ effort at least.  Definitely worthy of the hype, though.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'156583\' date=\'Jul 2 2007, 10:11 PM\']
An hour of this may be a little too much, but it's definitely a B+ effort at least.  Definitely worthy of the hype, though.
[/quote]
It was the same thing over and over again. You're telling me they couldn't come up with gameplay any more creative than that?

The writing is pretty clever, but it will not be taking up permanent residence on my Tivo.

[Allstar87]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'156583\' date=\'Jul 3 2007, 01:11 AM\']
Funny.  I got a Jeopardy vibe.  Especially that opening.
[/quote]

I thought so too. The host podium reminded me of the one Jeopardy had before the switch to HD.

As for the game itself...I did like it, but it got repetitive fast. I wish they had found some way to add more variety to the rounds.

[jdhernandez]

I kinda liked the show..... for 30 minutes. It got a bit tiring after an hour, and the repetitiveness of Roger Lodge having to explain the clues after the answer was given was a bit too much for me. My thoughts can be summed up in three words:

I. Miss. Lingo.

PS: Why not have one episode of Camouflage followed by one episode of Lingo? It seems like a logical idea, that way GSn doesn't cycle through all of their episodes quickly. Then again, this is GSn we are talking about here.

[tpirfan28]

I don't have GSN...so I didn't see it. (It'll probably turn up in the Gigantic Thread of YouTube later.)  One question for you that saw it....

Is it better or worse than Chain Reaction?

[tvmitch]

We enjoyed the show, although it is tough. Early on, I was distracted by the letters falling off the board enough that I wasn't concentrating on the puzzles.

We thought that it might help to spice up the game by eliminating the third-place player after round 2 and having the third round on the clock (2 to 3 minutes, maybe) with shorter clues. Three words is just too much. And maybe more double score games? Other special puzzles? We felt like the show needed a kick in the pants.

Also, even though the set is small, all involved missed the textbook article on how to frame a single person medium-shot on Roger Lodge...he always filled up too much of the screen, at least in the first episode of the night last night.

[Yogi007]

My wife and I sorta liked the show.  We commented that Roger didn't have to explain the connection every single time the answer was revealed and the close up shots of him were getting old really fast.  We liked the clues to the puzzles.  We attempted to beat the contestants in answering the puzzles, but even we had to wait until near the end of the dropping of the letters to guess it.  We only watched the first episode.  We then watched the 3:30am TTTT that we DVR'ed from the night before.

[alfonzos]

I haven't seen  the show yet but I was glad to read that Yahoo! and Daily Variety gave the show positive reviews. Has anybody noticed if Wink Martindale is given credit? When I met him in 1989 he was working on a similar show called Squeezit.

[catnap1972]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'156595\' date=\'Jul 3 2007, 08:27 AM\']
I don't have GSN...so I didn't see it. (It'll probably turn up in the Gigantic Thread of YouTube later.)  One question for you that saw it....

Is it better or worse than Chain Reaction?
[/quote]

Definitely better, but I don't know if that's saying much.

I'd be inclined to agree with the other opinions--gets boring fast and way too smart (hard) for the room.

[mcsittel]

I watched both episodes tonight.  The show is a bit slow-paced, but that's fine-since the contestants and set were rather subdued.  It's kind of like an after-dinner 'digestive cookie' of entertainment.  The run-on words were fun; sometimes I found myself trying to read them all but that distracted from the fact that letters were soon dropping.  If they're going to be funny, I'd like a couple more seconds to get in on the joke.

I didn't find Roger Lodge to be that endearing a host.  I agree with the aforementioned sentiment of each puzzle not needing the Dylan Lane'sque explanation.    

There's a good play along factor-and if it is challenging, then well done to them!  It shouldn't be that easy.  It's testing an abstract skill most of us don't regularly use.  Bravo!  The only thing I found useful was to concentrate on the shortest set of letters first, as there were fewer possible words.  But then I wondered if I was wasting time not trying to get the whole puzzle.  A few times I'd come up with two of the three words and couldn't get the last word (hi Wink).  But again, I don't *want* it to be that simple!  If you don't have to think, what's the point in watching?

On the scoring... the first rounds are good practice but have very little impact on the final scoring.  Heck, the minimum values in the second round were often close to the maximum in the first!  It would also be nice if the score had some value... such as hundreds of points equalling bonus seconds a la "Whew!" for solving puzzles.  Plus the champ's winnings had nothing to do with their performance in the front game... at least give 'em a dollar a point or something rather than forcing the payoff to be simply based on the bonus round.  A TofC sometime with highest-scoring main game players could be really interesting.

Overall I enjoyed the show, but I doubt I'll make appointment viewing out of it.  Of course I thought "That's The Question" was a good show and look how long it lasted.