500 Questions

[Kevin Prather]

My only quibble so far is the pacing. If they could at least get up to 60 or 70 in an hour, I'd be happy. If there was some way to have the regular questions be rapid fire (Say, 60sec to get 10 questions, with special questions pausing the clock), that would be ideal.

I actually like the fact that they haven't touted any sort of Grand Prize, because that has seemed to be our complaint with a number of new game shows lately. They come out saying "You can win One Million Damn Dollars!", but it would require perfect play which is virtually impossible. A little more disclosure on some of the details would be nice, but better to steer clear of the grand prize discussion, IMO.

[TLEberle]

It reminds me a little of the Millionaire computer game: you'd enter your guess for the $300 question, Regis would say you're right, the little animation comes up, then the camera swings out to a wide view of the set, Regis says that the next question is for $500, then zooms back in and now we're rolling. Every question being its own event, plus Richard shouting at you about how you have two wrongs [gag!] so the challenger now steps into frame to nominate, then the question is played, it adds up to feeling like being stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Three wrong consecutively and no lifelines/multiple choice as well as free range to guess are interesting mechanics that we haven't seen much of. Having to stop the action after every question is going to sap the energy of the game.

(Piling on Kevin's idea, I wouldn't allow for any patter during a category gauntlet, just a warning siren when there's two strikes. The red box categories fail to interest me at all, mainly because we have to stop the game to asplain it and to say who will lead and who will follow and so on.)

I wonder if they haven't made mention of a grand prize because there isn't one, and that you win whatever money you pile up by answering questions.

[BrandonFG]

Tonight is the first time I've watched...the pacing isn't too bad here. Did it improve from earlier in the week?

I like what I'm seeing so far...the trash talk makes it kinda fun, although the guy from Naperville, Illinois is kinda smarmy. Love a challenging quiz show, even though I only got three and a half questions right. :-P

I came in towards the end of this episode, so I'm a little confused. Does a right answer erase the strikes you've accumulated?

[BillCullen1]

Love a challenging quiz show, even though I only got three and a half questions right. :-P

I came in towards the end of this episode, so I'm a little confused. Does a right answer erase the strikes you've accumulated? 

Yes

[clemon79]

I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?

[TLEberle]

I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?

Yup. The opponent gets to nominate the next category if the player up to bat has two wrongs, and if the at bat player can get through all fifty questions the opponent is thanked for his participation and replaced.

It may not be the zenith of fatuousness, but it's another silly rule in a game that has far too many of those already.

[BrandonFG]

I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?

Yup. The opponent gets to nominate the next category if the player up to bat has two wrongs, and if the at bat player can get through all fifty questions the opponent is thanked for his participation and replaced.

It may not be the zenith of fatuousness, but it's another silly rule in a game that has far too many of those already.

I don't necessarily mind the rule, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs the whole time, except in a two-strike scenario or a "Battle" question is a bit tedious.

[Matt Ottinger]

I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?

Yes.  He goes in if the main player gets three strikes, but he's replaced at the end of each fifty question set. The challenger seems too superfluous to me, since he has precious little ability to influence the outcome, no matter how much they suggest otherwise.  Being able to pick a category in a broad general-knowledge quiz isn't as much of an advantage as they make it out to be.  And winning a Battle is just worth one strike.

The last challenger in tonight's shows was building up an enormous bank of "bragging rights" by providing answers to the ones the main player missed, but he gets diddly for that.

[BrandonFG]

Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.

An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.

Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.

[Unrealtor]

Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.

An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.

Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.

Making the opponent answer correctly to get a strike just makes it even less likely that the primary contestant will get three wrong in a row.

If it were me and I was looking to bring in the second contestant more, I'd switch to some kind of king of the mountain thing where control goes back and forth between them. If the primary contestant doesn't get it but the opponent does or the opponent wins one of the special categories, they switch places. Whoever is in control at the end of question 50 gets the money in the bank and gets to continue on to compete against the next player. Three questions without a right answer by either player and they both go home empty handed. That kind of breaks the title "500 Questions" thing, but it seems like the producer could add some kind of jackpot for surviving 500 questions and be reasonably confident that the odds of it being hit are pretty low.

[TLEberle]

This does sort of prove my ongoing thesis--that Darnell and Burnett, alone or singly cannot create a coherent or compelling quiz show.

Bringing the opponent in turns it into an actual contest and not just a quiz against the writers, and right now the opponent is doing little more than what opponents do at the end of Trivial Pursuit. Personally I would have the opponent booby trap (some number) of the questions, and wrong answers on those incur some greater penalty.

[BrandonFG]

Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.

An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.

Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.

Making the opponent answer correctly to get a strike just makes it even less likely that the primary contestant will get three wrong in a row.

I forgot to add that the strikes are now cumulative...no more three in a row. Prolly should've added that part in. :-P

[clemon79]

I forgot to add that the strikes are now cumulative...no more three in a row. Prolly should've added that part in. :-P

So in order to win the kajillion dollars, that event can only happen twice in 500 questions?

Seems really unlikely.

[Fedya]

Twice in 450 questions.  That makes winning the jackpot so much more likely.

[Matt Ottinger]

"Alex, I'll take Geography for $200."

"Why?"

There's your pacing problem.