I agree wholeheartedly with this, however, the same demographic seems to love "Legends of the Hidden Temple" which was also an earnest, immersive game. Do you think that worked better than "Time"? And if so, why?
The thing that I'm reminded of when I watch these old shows is that they did things you just could not replicate out of the home office. As goofy as the first three rounds are, and having to suspend belief that the Temple Games are themed around the event and not just drawn from the same pool of five games with new prop dressing, the end game is magnificent and it's as close to Indiana Jones as a kid is going to get.
Sure, the host was outsourced to a rock and a voice-over guy, but for three minutes you got lost in the action, hoping the team would pick the right path or notice little things like the headdress feather in the python room indicated that a Temple Guard was ready to spring, or finding things to throw at the TV because the kid could not be less competent at putting the monkey together than if it was an IKEA bookcase, that at least for me I was always emotionally invested in the outcome: happy when they won and disappointed if they just won the skateboard consolation prize.
With the Trail of Time, the quiz material was rehashed twice before and you generally got a good sense of whether the kid could win it based on how many wrong answers were given. It felt like you were watching a thing happen than experiencing it, at least for me. Where in the World did so many things so well and hit so many high notes that Where in Time was bound to compare unfavorably no matter what. I think that if Where in Time was the first and only we would say "they're trying for a thing and it's got some highlights," but to go from Greg and his marzipan flavored trip portfolio to Kevin Shinick and "activate the time portal!" it's just a cringe-a-minute.
