Things you like that everyone seems to hate

[SRIV94]

Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.

[Twentington]

And I'd stand firm on declaring "Supermarket Sweep" the best game show of the 90s.

I'm just the opposite. Supermarket Sweep just isn't my cup of tea.

/One for the road: Drew Carey in Seasons 39-40 > Bob Barker in Seasons 32-35.

Fixed that for you.

Seconded.

Another one: I didn't think that Rich Jeffries or M.G. Kelly were bad announcers, and Daniel Rosen was actually less sucky than I recalled. (I still think he was a poor fit for TPIR, but I think he could've done well on a mellower game show.) On the flipside, I think that Joe Cipriano sounds like Rich Fields after drinking a gallon of NyQuil.

Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.

Believe it or not, I've actually seen that backfire at least once. One guy had something like $30,000 in the Speed-Up thanks to Pat hitting $5,000 on the Final Spin… but one of his opponents had over $38K.

[Matt Ottinger]

By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round.  It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format.  Same thing for "Crosswords".  You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works".  Not every format is going to be perfect.

In a broad sense, you're absolutely right.  Family Feud is usually won by the team that gets the weighted final bank. Even Jeopardy can go to the lesser player (paging Nancy Zerg) under the right set of circumstances.

Still, personally, when I watch a game whose centerpiece is a big giant wheel, I'm going in thinking that luck and random chance is going to have a lot to do with the game.  When I watch a game that's all about questions and answers, in general I expect to see the reward go to the person who's done the best job at answering those questions. Crosswords had a lot of good stuff in it, but the idea that a person could theoretically answer one question and win the game was not part of that good stuff.

Before this gets any more heated, keep in mind that the whole point of this thread is that people are voicing their minority opinions.  It's amusing enough to a point, but when you take it personally and try to convince everybody else that they're wrong and you're right, you're probably not going to get very far.

[Jay Temple]

Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.

I always had the opposite objection. Before the "+1000", Pat would say, "Vowels are worth nothing and consonants are worth ..." and I'd say, "Next to nothing."

Caesar's Challenge was worse, though, because only the winner kept their score, so it could reach a point where there was no point in anyone else trying to solve it.

[SRIV94]

Believe it or not, I've actually seen that backfire at least once. One guy had something like $30,000 in the Speed-Up thanks to Pat hitting $5,000 on the Final Spin… but one of his opponents had over $38K.

Never said it was always the case--just pretty much the case.  Exceptions will happen.  Such is life.

[clemon79]

By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round.

Yes, that is incredibly solid logic.

It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format.

Oh, I assure you it does. It doesn't kill the *mechanic*, true, but Wheel's game structure has been worthless for years now. I watch it for one reason and one reason only and that is to see how quickly I can guess the puzzle, and I could give a frog's fat ass what those numbers are in front of the players because the overall result is randomized 95% of the time anyhow as a result of Mo' Money.

Same thing for "Crosswords".  You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works".

Okay, but again, you haven't yet refuted the argument that it's a grossly flawed game structure for what is supposed to be a fairly straightforward quiz. So maybe you like the mechanic, and that's fine. I like that mechanic, too. Fortunately, I can engage in it every day by buying a newspaper.

Not every format is going to be perfect.

Life is too short to watch badly flawed formats.

[Patrick Patterson]

Life is too short to watch badly flawed formats.

I've really been enjoying Steve Harvey on Family Feud lately. It's getting me back into the show again for the first time since enjoying the classic episodes on GSN for the first time with Richard Dawson and then Ray Combs. One thing that has always irked me about the format (and I know it's been used previously on this version as well) is the Sudden Death. In it, a team that won three puzzles can lose to a team that previously won one puzzle by responding quickest to what is usually a fairly easy question to get the #1 answer to. While my enjoyment of the game is not wholly adversely affected by this, it can be distracting when it occurs, for sure. So, I'm on the fence here. I definitely understand what you're saying, but I also feel that there are sometimes other things that might enhance a flaw such as this.

[TLEberle]

Caesar's Challenge was worse, though, because only the winner kept their score, so it could reach a point where there was no point in anyone else trying to solve it.

But here's the difference: the final word on Caesar's Challenge is meant to be played quickly because there's about a minute left. Ditto the final spin of the day. Time's almost up so let's get this round done and dusted and declare a winner. Back when $5000 was a great total for a day, sure, spinning $800 means the game is in the balance, for better or worse. Trying to equate the spoiler snipe with Final Jeopardy or the final spin or the last word doesn't work because they're all means to different ends, and you can't judge them as similar.

[WarioBarker]

I happen to like Rolf Benirschke on Wheel of Fortune, even before I read his autobiography (which only increased my respect for the man).

As for the ongoing discussion on Crosswords, it's not like Jeopardy! where you not only have to be knowledgeable but also anticipate your opponents' moves in Final and know math so you don't screw yourself over; on Crosswords, you only have to look at the timer and jump in at the last possible moment to win stuff through almost no effort. There was also the fact that if second place was behind by a considerable margin, s/he had to deliberately give wrong answers to maybe become a Spoiler.

And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.

Another one: I didn't think that Rich Jeffries or M.G. Kelly were bad announcers

Honestly, I have to second these. Kelly in particular could ad-lib around his script pretty well.

The Prize Puzzle is my absolute least favorite part of the show because it turns the risk/reward factor of the show on its ear. A major appeal is the "risk your luck" element, and element damaged by the prize puzzle. And yeah, frankly, it kills the format for me.

This, this, many times this. Not just because it's a guaranteed prize (I've seen contestants solve it for little to no money), but also because the puzzle writing generally sucks because it always has to be a trip. There's also the fact that some contestants have won solely through the guaranteed prize.

[TLEberle]

And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.

How so? The game was well and truly over at the horn. Would you have it be instead that the player who solves that last word wins the game? Or maybe for each word solved a bingo ball with their name goes into the enormous hopper and whosever ball pops out goes for the car?

And an aside to Dan: we know about the strategery of Crosswords. Not only don't you need to repeat it, but certainly not with the bolding.

[snowpeck]

I have to agree on Benirschke... he wasn't exactly horrible, and was getting better by the end of his short tenure. Of course, the fact that he and I have had some of the exact same medical challenges sways my opinions a bit. His story (even returning to football after everything that happened) was a big part of what helped me, as a scared teenager, get through it all.

Here's an opinion I've not seen many share... I liked TPIR better as a half hour show. Yes, the Showcase Showdown evens out the chances of getting into the Showcase round, but I thought the show had a better feel and pace during the half hour days. Maybe my attention span is just too short.

[Jay Temple]

And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.

How so? The game was well and truly over at the horn. Would you have it be instead that the player who solves that last word wins the game? Or maybe for each word solved a bingo ball with their name goes into the enormous hopper and whosever ball pops out goes for the car?

Since I'm the one who raised the issue, I'll answer for myself. I would have preferred the WOF set-up (keep everything you solve) to the J! set-up (no cash for non-winners). I would have preferred even a minor tweak, where you get anything you solve in the last XX seconds of play.

[Mr. Armadillo]

By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round.  It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format.

It's also highly mitigated by the fact that everybody on Wheel gets to keep whatever they earn, as opposed to the person who spoils last taking the whole pot.  If I have $22,000 going into Final Spin and someone gets $24,000 off Pat's 'lucky' spin, oh well, at least I get to keep my twenty-two large.  If I have $5,000 before I get spoiled with two clues left, some bozo's walking off with 'my' $5k.