Author Topic: Rules flaws, etc... (Read 33796 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #75 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:15:52 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'210603\' date=\'Mar 17 2009, 06:13 PM\']How is that a flaw? Three jokers = automatic win with correct answer. Considering how often that happened...[/quote]It isn't. It violates the thing where I like games to be balanced, because the other person has no last licks, but it isn't a flaw.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #76 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:48:32 PM »

At one time, the champion spun first, which meant that conceivably a challenger could go away having never spun. (I assume this did happen at some point.) I would call that a flaw, but I agree that with the challenger spinning first, it's merely annoying.

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #77 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:34:51 AM »

Quote

The red categories, too many for me, ruined the flow of the game. I liked if a player missed, that gave the other player a slight advantage at times, not picking a red box to get 3 in a row in one turn essentially.

Again, I see this more as an "annoyance" rather than a flaw. Sure; I wasn't a big fan when they brought in more red boxes so that the two players would be forced to face-off for a box, but it did make for a more exciting game (for a viewer, IMO) and cut down on ties. And, for the "Bonus Category" that's alluded to in the second point, on the RARE instance the champion got 3 in a row on his/her first turn, the challenger was allowed to play again the very next game (they did the same thing on Bullseye if a champ simply won the game without ever giving up control). That took care of the only flaw I saw with that category.

Quote

Lucky Seven had a flaw, back when zeros (or is it zeroes?) were used in the car price.

Uh; correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still possible? (Now that you mention it, I haven't really seen any cars ending in 0 lately in that game...) And I really don't see the flaw in this; after all, "Lucky Seven" is a game that requires you to know at least a little something about the price of a car. And, wouldn't the same "flaw" exist with 9's in the price?

\A real flaw: Chris Wylde being allowed to host a game show...

Anthony

Loogaroo · « **Reply #78 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:51:16 AM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'210629\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 01:34 AM\']A real flaw: Chris Wylde being allowed to host a game show...[/quote]

That's not a flaw, that's a crime against humanity.

Robair · « **Reply #79 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:55:29 AM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'210629\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 02:34 AM\']
And I really don't see the flaw in this; after all, "Lucky Seven" is a game that requires you to know at least a little something about the price of a car. And, wouldn't the same "flaw" exist with 9's in the price?
[/quote]
L7 is eminently winnable. But not easy and not always automatic. All you have to do is don't take a major dump on the second number, and zig when the price of the car zigs, and zag when the price of the car zags. The way it's usually set up, there's a predominace of extreme numbers (1, 2, 9 and

in those middle two slots. Recipe for disaster.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #80 on:** March 18, 2009, 10:30:43 AM »

Quote

At one time, the champion spun first, which meant that conceivably a challenger could go away having never spun. (I assume this did happen at some point.) I would call that a flaw, but I agree that with the challenger spinning first, it's merely annoying.

It did happen occasionally (I think GSN even ran an episode or two when it did), but Jack would always mention that challenger would get to play another game. Nobody ever left without having at least one spin.

As for the three jokers rule, it kind of bugged me too. If the player who got the three jokers had one additional turn, I would have liked to have seen the other player also get a chance so that they had the same number of turns. However, the odds of three jokers coming up two spins in a row was pretty remote.

Neumms · « **Reply #81 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:22:22 PM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'210629\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 01:34 AM\']
Again, I see this more as an "annoyance" rather than a flaw. Sure; I wasn't a big fan when they brought in more red boxes so that the two players would be forced to face-off for a box, but it did make for a more exciting game (for a viewer, IMO) and cut down on ties.

A real flaw: Chris Wylde being allowed to host a game show...
[/quote]

To me, ties causing good, long matches and large pots are what made Tic Tac Dough sort of interesting. Otherwise, the game was just the same thing over and over. Witty, interesting writing may have helped, of course.

And I hadn't thought of "Taboo-ooooooo" in ages. Damn them! It coulda been something!

Neumms · « **Reply #82 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:25:42 PM »

A "Split Second" question, from someone who only watched it for the cars: How often did the leader going into the Countdown Round, who only needed 3 answers to win, get all 3 on the first question?

It seems like that would happen a lot, or were the questions so hard a player could seldom all 3?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #83 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:57:32 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210645\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 11:25 AM\']It seems like that would happen a lot, or were the questions so hard a player could seldom all 3?[/quote]
It happened occasionally, but it was made clear on the air that that was the advantage you earned by winning the main game. That's compleetly different than someone being handed an advantage arbitrarily.

Neumms · « **Reply #84 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:08:20 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210651\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 11:57 AM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210645\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 11:25 AM\']It seems like that would happen a lot, or were the questions so hard a player could seldom all 3?[/quote]
It happened occasionally, but it was made clear on the air that that was the advantage you earned by winning the main game. That's compleetly different than someone being handed an advantage arbitrarily.
[/quote]

Definitely. I just wonder if it would be less anti-climactic if it took 4 correct answers to win (raising the other two accordingly).

clemon79 · « **Reply #85 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:11:24 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210653\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 10:08 AM\']
Definitely. I just wonder if it would be less anti-climactic if it took 4 correct answers to win (raising the other two accordingly).[/quote]
Well, that's how the Monty Hall version did it, wasn't it? 5, 6, and 7, I think?

Sodboy13 · « **Reply #86 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:12:58 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210653\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 12:08 PM\']
Definitely. I just wonder if it would be less anti-climactic if it took 4 correct answers to win (raising the other two accordingly).
[/quote]

They went 4-5-6 in the '80s revival, which is about the only thing from that version I prefer. Unfortunately, they mixed up the order of the format, turning the game into a "buzz first, think later" affair.

clemon79 · « **Reply #87 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:24:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'210655\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 10:12 AM\']
They went 4-5-6 in the '80s revival, which is about the only thing from that version I prefer.[/quote]
That's right. My mistake.

Quote

Unfortunately, they mixed up the order of the format, turning the game into a "buzz first, think later" affair.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

PYLdude · « **Reply #88 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:36:36 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210644\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 11:22 AM\']
And I hadn't thought of "Taboo-ooooooo" in ages. Damn them! It coulda been something!
[/quote]

I think Chris Wylde was the least of "Taboo"'s problems...

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #89 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:12:56 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210657\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 01:24 PM\']

Quote

Unfortunately, they mixed up the order of the format, turning the game into a "buzz first, think later" affair.

I'm not sure what you mean here.[/quote]
I think I know what he's talking about, thought I don't remember enough about the Monty version to describe exactly what its problem was.

On the original series, one of the things that made the game interesting from a strategy perspective was that you didn't have to wait for Kennedy to finish the question. The first person to buzz in would interrupt the question and could answer based on what he thought the question was going to be. Regardless of whether the first player was right or wrong, Kennedy would then finish the question for the other two players. That is a tricky thing to do right in a high-speed game, which is one of the reasons he was so justly praised for his work on that show.

Monty's version was different. He finished the question before he took any answers. I can't remember whether players had to wait for the entire question to be finished before they could signal or if, even worse, they could buzz in early and still get to hear the entire question. If it was the latter, that would certainly be a "buzz first, think later" scenario.