Game shows or parts of games that seem flawed

[wdm1219inpenna]

Bullseye - In theory, not that I recall this happening, a player selects a $100 per question category and has a Bullseye.  They answer 19 in a row, but miss question 20.  Player 2 answers it and wins the game with just 1 answer, vs. 19 being answered by the other player.  

The Joker's Wild - The challenger spins 3 jokers and answers a question correctly.  The champion is not even given a final spin to try to tie.  It also irked me if a player had $450 and got 3 jokers, they'd only win $500 total for the game.

Card Sharks - When the first card is an ace or a deuce, why must the player say "higher" or "lower" when no other option is possible?  "You have an ace."  They won't get rid of it.  I'd be very hard pressed to see anybody freeze on it.  Why must they say "lower"?  In fact, if they say "higher", the host would say "You really think it's HIGHER?" or something to that effect.  

Some shows had seemingly unfair rules but amended them.  Scrabble for instance.  If the crossword game was tied 2-2, they didn't always play speedword, and that gave the player who controlled the tiles for word #5 an unfair advantage.  I like that they incorporated speedword for a "tie-breaking" method.

Price is Right - The last contestant to be called down gets only 1 opportunity to bid on a prize & make it up on stage while some might be down there for 6 tries.  If the show wants to be more fair-minded, and speed things up, call down 4 players for the first half of the show, after the first game, the remaining 3 bid, after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid.  The one who doesn't make it becomes a contestant not appearing on stage.  Start the 2nd half calling down 4 more players, again giving all of them up to 3 chances to bid & win.  It would require one less person to call down overall.  It would speed up things some in contestants' row, and perhaps allow a little bit more time for Drew & stage players to interact and/or play more pricing games that are more involved.

Let the flame throwers begin.  I'd like to hear other observances from others about games or game shows that have flawed rules or fixes you'd make if you produced.

[J.R.]

UK Countdown's scoring system allows games to frequently end in runaways or outright blowouts.

When the score is 117 to 25 (really happened on an episode I watched recently), having the last round be worth just 10 points is really silly.

[joker316]

Using your Bullseye scenario, if you got a "bullseye" you had the option to bank after every question, If you take the gamble , get 19 in a row and blow the 20th (and your opponent answers and wins ) well...sucks to be you.

[mmb5]

A large purpose of a show is to keep a viewer engaged and often in a designated time frame.  That may result in a game being less than fair*.  Countdown (and Jeopardy), which either do not artificially inflate a scoring system towards the end or make the material more challenging to make up for it, takes a large part of their engagement from the viewer trying to compete with the contestant.

$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.


(*It's 3-1 for the Wings over the Predators in the third period, but the Preds can come right back in a hurry since goals in the third period count for 3!)

[dale_grass]

(*It's 3-1 for the Wings over the Predators in the third period, but the Preds can come right back in a hurry since goals in the third period count for 3!)

Oh, this has Karn written all over it.  "The Red Wings have drawn first blood! But that's OK, because in the third period we've DOUBLED THE POINTS!!!!11!!1!"

[tpirfan28]

The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.

$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.

Practice round.  Calm the jitters of being on-camera.

[Otm Shank]

Here's a catch-all pet peeve violated on many of the classic shows: "We'll add up the scores after the break." It did not matter when channel surfing was a budding artform by sliding the plastic arrow on the set-top box, but basically it was an admission that there was no more show left, despite the fact that it is 7 minutes to the half-hour. Placing the fee plugs at the end of the show just adds to it.

Also, those shows that had carryover gameplay would frequently padded the end of a show with a contestant interview, with that contestant never having a chance to play on that episode. Then, at the top of tomorrow's show, let's get reacquainted with this person. Ugh! I know that they were kind of stuck when time was short, but this was not an entertaining solution.

[Jeremy Nelson]

The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.

$100 round on Super Password -- always bugged me.

Practice round.  Calm the jitters of being on-camera.

There are a bunch of shows whose first couple rounds really don't mean anything as far as the outcome of the game is concerned- Body Language immediately comes to mind. But yeah, I'd have to chalk it up to on camera practice as well.

I have a problem with Wheel's Prize Puzzle. Often times, that helps decide the game, and even more so during weeks where pairs play the game and the trips can hit five figures.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

Not sure if this counts, but how about Press Your Luck near the end of the run. The round 2 board changed many times during the shows' run, and it was during the final year that the budget (in cash alone), hit rock bottom. It went from over $50K grand in the beginning in 1983, to  less than $40K in mid-1986. Don't take this the wrong way. I enjoy the 1986 episodes of PYL. They had just as many exciting moments as the ones we're used to seeing. But you know your round 2 board is in trouble when it's less than $40K in cash alone (compared to early in the run), when a Pick-A-Corner hit results in choosing between $1,400/$500+S/$1,400, and a choice between $1,500/$500 as depicted here.

[Jimmy Owen]

Not sure if this counts, but how about Press Your Luck near the end of the run. The round 2 board changed many times during the shows' run, and it was during the final year that the budget (in cash alone), hit rock bottom. It went from over $50K grand in the beginning in 1983, to  less than $40K in mid-1986. Don't take this the wrong way. I enjoy the 1986 episodes of PYL. They had just as many exciting moments as the ones we're used to seeing. But you know your round 2 board is in trouble when it's less than $40K in cash alone (compared to early in the run), when a Pick-A-Corner hit results in choosing between $1,400/$500+S/$1,400, and a choice between $1,500/$500 as depicted here.

Well, for that show, a few more Whammies on the board would correct some of the budget overages and entertain Joe Sixpack and Mary Homemaker.

[BrandonFG]

The one-strike Triple round from the first few years of "Feud"'s current run. It oftentimes made the first three rounds irrelevant. I liked the one-strike concept, just not the sudden tripling of points. You're doing a four-round show, why not just make round three Double?

At least they fixed it later in the run, even if it meant hearing Richard Karn yell about it.

[beatlefreak84]

For the Joker's Wild thing (the challenger spins 3 Jokers on his/her first spin and answers the question right to win before the champ gets a spin), did the show have a rule that, if a player didn't get a turn in the game, then he/she could come back the next game?

I ask because I know both Bullseye and Tic Tac Dough had similar rules (Bullseye:  champion gets Bullseye, runs the category and wins on first turn; Tic Tac:  Bonus Category allows the champion to keep answering questions until he/she wins).

Having two practice rounds on Body Language didn't bother me so much, except that, for the rounds that counted, you were relying on the celebrities to guess and get the puzzle right for you.  I thought it would have been more fair to allow the contestant to choose what role he/she wanted in those rounds.

Anthony

[Bob Zager]

One of my pet peeves is NOT the producers' fault.  

On Joker's Wild, when the champion had just one opportunity to try to tie/defeat the challenger, Jack Barry (or Jim Peck/Bill Cullen), would explain all the possibilities of doing so.  

When a game used a "Fast Forward," category, it was always explained that it was possible for the champ to use that as a last resort (even if it came up singly for $50/question).   Sometimes contestants would quickly forget about that, and thus chose one of the other categories for $50, and then "It's all over!"

Of course, lots of contestants get nervous, and that's why it happens!

IIRC, I'd seen the challenger take the "Fast Forward" category, rack up $500, but chose to keep on going, for at least two additional questions!  Eventually, an incorrect answer was given by the player, dropping him/her back to his/her previous amount, and the champ eventually won the game!

[Jeremy Nelson]

The one-strike Triple round from the first few years of "Feud"'s current run. It oftentimes made the first three rounds irrelevant.

To be fair, the first three rounds are still pretty irrelevant- hence why I would put my best face off people in the fourth and fifth positions.  Your only real advantage to winning the first three rounds is if you win them all, because you can then afford to lose the Triple Round.

[Kevin Prather]

The Sudden Death round on Winning Lines. One of the following two scenarios must happen:

A) All six numbers are represented in the first six questions, giving a huge advantage to the person whose number comes up 6th.
B) All six numbers are NOT represented in the first six questions, giving not only a huge advantage to the person whose number doesn't come up, but a huge disadvantage to the person whose number comes up twice.