Author Topic: $otC Revived Before Password? (Read 8612 times)

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #15 on:** September 10, 2007, 05:16:41 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163265\' date=\'Sep 10 2007, 04:21 PM\']
I don't understand how Feud plays to a dollar amount without any straddling issues, but it becomes a problem with Password. [/quote]
There are those of us who believe that the Feud point structure is seriously flawed. It works, mostly because people aren't ultimately tuning in to see which team wins. And Password could/would work the same way. If producers want a show not to straddle, they'll do something to make it not straddle. We purists might not like it, but that's the way things are.

chops · « **Reply #16 on:** September 10, 2007, 07:55:50 PM »

I've got another idea...perhaps half-assed as well, but it would perhaps solve the straddling issue, and it borrows from Passwords of the past.

First round: two puzzles at, say, $250 each.
Second round: modified Ca$hword, with one word for each team. $1000 for the first clue, $500 for the second, $250 for the third.
Third round: old-school Password, with each word starting at $500 and losing $50 with each incorrect guess. Repeat until time is called.

And if a tiebreaker is needed:[quote name=\'fostergray82\']perhaps do a toss-up style puzzle where the ~~remaining~~ words are revealed one-at-a-time. First contestant (no celebrity) who thinks they have an idea about the puzzle can buzz in, but if wrong, the opponent gets a free guess.[/quote]

chill411 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 10, 2007, 10:16:15 PM »

You could always try something similar to the Scrabble Sprint/2-Minute Drill ending and have the two play a 60-second timed round (ala Alphabetics) separately, with the person behind in the game leading off. Very likely you'd be able to have 3 puzzles in there beforehand, so you'd end up having around 10-12 words and two speed rounds. That should leave enough room for celebrity banter.

The only problem is that it doesn't leave much for a bonus round. Of course, there might be enough excitement in the final round that a bonus round isn't entirely necessary.

That Don Guy · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2007, 03:41:15 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163265\' date=\'Sep 10 2007, 01:21 PM\']
I don't understand how Feud plays to a dollar amount without any straddling issues, but it becomes a problem with Password.[/quote]
With Feud, you have some control over how long a round lasts. If you plan for four rounds and need five, a 3-answer puzzle can be played very quickly (especially when they added the "I'll only read the question once, and when I get to you, you have three seconds to answer" rule). Password, on the other hand, not only had all of its puzzles the same size, but had the problem that it was possible for nobody to solve a puzzle (I'm not 100% sure, but I think there was at least one show where the game lasted so long that they didn't have time for the bonus round).

Here's a problem: what other solutions are there besides these three:
1. No significantly increased points in later rounds, which make the later rounds irrelevant in a blowout;
2. Significantly increased points in later rounds, which make the early rounds meaningless;
3. Straddling, which seems to be a problem in terms of "we want self-contained shows that we can show in any order"?
Jeopardy! doesn't seem to have a problem with "either someone is so far ahead that Final Jeopardy is meaningless, or it comes down to somebody with a big lead lost just because they didn't know the last question (er, answer)", so why do other shows?

(Here's an idea for Password: end the head-to-head game with a lightning round that's worth, say, $250 a word - that way, you give both players a reasonable chance to win and you don't use up too much time doing it. The problem is, you now have a bonus round that's almost exactly like the round you've just played twice in the main game.)

(Er, yes, that is pretty much what chill411 suggested, isn't it...)

-- Don

TLEberle · « **Reply #19 on:** September 11, 2007, 11:41:59 PM »

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'163257\' date=\'Sep 10 2007, 02:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'163152\' date=\'Sep 9 2007, 04:21 PM\']
I'd love to see Password come back, too. I think the biggest problem is that there's no good way to keep it from straddling, which in today's market seems to be a deal-breaker.[/quote]
I assume the obvious solution to straddling - instead of a point limit for victory, impose a time limit (and maybe throw in a per-word amount in addition to a puzzle amount - say, $50 a word, plus $250 for the first puzzle, $500 for the second, $750 for the third, and so on), and play the bonus round at the end of each show - has a problem of some sort?

-- Don
[/quote] College Bowl played to a time's-up whistle. Wheel of Fortune does that too. As does Jeopardy!. I wouldn't have a problem with "and at the bell, our winners are Carol and Bob with 49 points."
But if you're not keen on that, I think a lightning round would be a fine cap to the game. It's not hard to come up with something where the main game isn't peanuts, but the game doesn't feel like it's decided just by the Big Final.

The problem, of course, is that the game requires a familiarity with the English language, and its nuances, that just doesn't exist anymore.

mmb5 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 12, 2007, 12:14:38 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'163470\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 11:41 PM\']
College Bowl played to a time's-up whistle. Wheel of Fortune does that too. As does Jeopardy!.
[/quote]

College Bowl had a visible clock. There was no mystery on when it was going to end.

--Mike

uncamark · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2007, 12:34:56 PM »

As for "Concentration," NBCU now owns that lock, stock and barrel--I assume that the license with Victory under which MGP had a sublicense to produce is over. Since NBCU does sell the format overseas, I assume that it's come up, especially if they decide to have a stablemate to syndicated "DOND" in 2009-10. For whatever reason, nothing's happened.

And I would almost assume that if "Concentration" is revived, NBCU would probably give it to Phil Gurin, since he seems to have a favored nations' status at that company.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2007, 03:11:03 PM »

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'163500\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 12:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'163470\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 11:41 PM\']
College Bowl played to a time's-up whistle. Wheel of Fortune does that too. As does Jeopardy!.
[/quote]
College Bowl had a visible clock. There was no mystery on when it was going to end.[/quote]
...and Jeopardy doesn't end when time runs out. Most of the time, the clock doesn't even come into play anyway, but the game isn't over when the bell sounds, only a round is over.

...and Wheel says (more or less) "time's about to run out, and here's what we're going to do about it."

In all three cases, you have knowledge and/or warning as to when the end of the game arrives. Good game formats have that. Bad game formats don't.

HYHYBT · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2007, 12:09:31 AM »

Well, if fixing it is as easy as adding a "minute to go" sound...

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2007, 11:54:07 AM »

[quote name=\'HYHYBT\' post=\'163613\' date=\'Sep 13 2007, 12:09 AM\']
Well, if fixing it is as easy as adding a "minute to go" sound...[/quote]
I don't think it's a fix, but it's an easy improvement. For a game that borrows so liberally from Jeopardy, I'm surprised they didn't think of it.

Neumms · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:13:15 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'163515\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:11 PM\']
...and Jeopardy doesn't end when time runs out. Most of the time, the clock doesn't even come into play anyway, but the game isn't over when the bell sounds, only a round is over.
[/quote]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I think Jeopardy works better when the time limit comes into play. Now, once the second Daily Double is called, picking clues has no importance. If you leave a couple on the board, it does, which seems to lend some small bit of tension.

Even playing the home game, the host would note in advance how many clues we'd leave on the board.

Neumms · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:16:57 PM »

[quote name=\'chops\' post=\'163317\' date=\'Sep 10 2007, 06:55 PM\']
I've got another idea...perhaps half-assed as well, but it would perhaps solve the straddling issue, and it borrows from Passwords of the past.

First round: two puzzles at, say, $250 each.
Second round: modified Ca$hword, with one word for each team. $1000 for the first clue, $500 for the second, $250 for the third.
Third round: old-school Password, with each word starting at $500 and losing $50 with each incorrect guess. Repeat until time is called.
[/quote]

I think this is nearly perfect. Maybe puzzles for $500 each, to be more at par with the old-school segment. Maybe do up to three puzzles, whoever gets two first plays Ca$hword, then switch partners. This seems perfect to me. Then do Alphabetics at the end, but call it the Lightning Round. Get Oprah to executive produce so big-time stars will show up and it'll do gangbusters.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:19:31 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'163661\' date=\'Sep 13 2007, 01:16 PM\']
Get Oprah to executive produce so big-time stars will show up and it'll do gangbusters.
[/quote]
Ooh...Tom Cruise week...I can see him jumping on the desk!

ANNOUNCER: "The Password is ASPIRIN" (ding).
CONTESTANT: "Medicine..."
TOM CRUISE: "Bull-(bleep)!"

Author Topic: $otC Revived Before Password? (Read 8612 times)

chill411

uncamark