Game shows or parts of games that seem flawed

[Dbacksfan12]

after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid.

Contestant #1: $500
Contestant #2: $501

Boy, that just makes things so fun, doesn't it?

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.

You've been playing the Gametek TPiR game lately, haven't you?

It also irked me if a player had $450 and got 3 jokers, they'd only win $500 total for the game.

But if they have $100 and spin 3 jokers; that landmark feat is worth $400?

When the first card is an ace or a deuce, why must the player say "higher" or "lower" when no other option is possible?

I think you answered your own question.  The only other option is to freeze.  They have to choose something, as the possibility of another two or ace coming as the next card exists.

I've never cared for shows with scoring structures like H².  If you win 4 games, you shouldn't be able to win one and force a tie.

[Unrealtor]

The spoilers on Merv's Crosswords.

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

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

My personal theory is that it was more about slowing down the main game, since the progressive jackpots on Ca$hword and the endgame meant that it was costing them at least $6,000 every time through regardless of whether either one was won or lost.

[TLEberle]

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.

Player in control should have quit with $1900, then. No sympathy; that's why 'daring' was part of the opening tease.

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.  

Because you don't want to create "special situations" if you can help it. Let the contestant yell "lower!" at the top of their lungs and win the game. It doesn't hurt anything.

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.  

That's unfortunate, but there isn't really an elegant solution to fix it.

Let the flame throwers begin.

Where'd this come from?

[Ian Wallis]

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?

During the first year or so, yes.  When the show debuted in 1972 the champion sat on camera left and spun first.  When the champ got three jokers in the first spin, the challenger would always be invited back because they didn't get a chance to play.  I think was usually the next game, but in one of the CBS episodes GSN ran, they came back another day.

Sometime around early '74 they changed it so the champ sat camera right and spun second.  After this occurred, they no longer had that rule because the champ had already played and won something anyway.

[BillCullen1]

On Body Language and Password Plus/Super Password, the celeb always acted out or gave the clues in the bonus round. I thought the contestant should be given the option or giving or receiving the clues, a la Pyramid. Some celebs were not as swift as others.

[TLEberle]

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

Every round that does not directly determine the winning family is irrelevant. Family Feud is no different than The Cheap Show in that fashion, Feud is just less overt about it. The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.

[Joe Mello]

The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.

I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back.  Do you think that would've helped?

[TLEberle]

I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back.  Do you think that would've helped?

I don't think Feud needs much "help," given how long they've been on. I think it makes for a good "show" to have a tense and quick final round.

[BrandonFG]

The thing I like about the one-strike round is that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Everything is hugely important, you don't get a second chance. The downside is that the round obviously neuters the previous 15 minutes or so, and unfortunately you realize that you've been watching Louie Anderson slog through the show for no reason.

I don't recall the 1-strike round being around after they switched the win condition back.  Do you think that would've helped?

They ditched the 1-strike round in fall 2003, Karn's second season. Honestly, I enjoyed the first few seasons*, in spite of Louie's mumbling hosting, but that round just never sat well with me. The strategy was there, but like Travis said, it nearly negated everything that happened prior.

*I still watch it from time to time, but there's small things that have annoyed me over the years, not just the desperately sexual questions.

[TLEberle]

They ditched the 1-strike round in fall 2003, Karn's second season. Honestly, I enjoyed the first few seasons*, in spite of Louie's mumbling hosting, but that round just never sat well with me. The strategy was there, but like Travis said, it nearly negated everything that happened prior.

You could call the sudden death question a one-strike round, if you were of a mind. They've awarded tournament of champions jackpots on that single question, having played six more to get there. As long as you take questions four and five, you can nap through the first three questions and still win the game. Depending on how you look at that, this is either a bug or a feature.

[parliboy]

If round five were a full round, it would not be so bad.  As it is, bug, not feature.

[Mr. Armadillo]

after the 2nd game, the last 2 bid.

Contestant #1: $500
Contestant #2: $501

Boy, that just makes things so fun, doesn't it?

This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.

[Kevin Prather]

This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.

Then, by definition, it isn't fixed, is it?

[dale_grass]

This can be fixed by making the two-player round an over/under game, but you've just lost a million Cletuses around the country.

Then, by definition, it isn't fixed, is it?

In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed.  In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept.  However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not.  Not only would the purists, by definition, star squealing, but Joe Sixpack, by definition,  wouldn't be able to follow along as easily.

[clemon79]

In terms of fairness, by definition, it is fixed.  In fact, a successful game show revolved around this concept.  However, in terms of eyeballs on the tube, by definition, no it's not.

Well, we're making TV here, not fairness.