Game shows overdue for a remake

[TLEberle]

I envision something where the winner of the day finishes with some amount, and can then increase her bank account by that figure by playing several different rounds and then decides on a trip, a car or bonanza, rather than you can win a quarter-million just for reaching $117 after the speed round.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I envision something where the winner of the day finishes with some amount, and can then increase her bank account by that figure by playing several different rounds and then decides on a trip, a car or bonanza, rather than you can win a quarter-million just for reaching $117 after the speed round.

My thoughts were along this line, because I do think the shopping element is important. Shorten the showroom and make it four prizes and the cash ($100k). The player can stop with their cash total from the front game and buy whatever prize is at their current score level, or they can wager their score money on a final question round (just take the 10 in 60 from Temptation since it's short). If they win, they get the prize at whatever level they jump to, and if they lose, they lose that wagered money and go down to the kitchen appliances. Either way they win something, but the 10 in 60 seems to have a win rate where it's a pretty well earned win.

[SuperMatch93]

^I had a bonus round idea similar to that a while back:

Your total at the end of the game is your baseline for shopping, with the same sale prices as the old show. The contestant is asked questions (more difficult than the main game ones) at $50 a pop and given the category before each one. A wrong answer gives them a strike, and three strikes ends the bonus round and forfeits any additional dollars won (leaving them with what their main game total could afford). Once they have two strikes the risk element comes into play: after hearing the category they could cash out at whatever level they were at, or go on.

I had a primetime version in mind sans returning champions for this.

[TimK2003]

 

Pacing is also a major consideration - even in the 1987 version, they struggled to fit a full match into one episode, and there were many instances of the time's-up bell ringing just before the Big Numbers could be played. I can only imagine how much less time is available to producers in a half-hour timeslot nowadays.

Blame some of it on those stupid mini-games they added as prizes. Especially when won in mid-match, they were such a momentum stopper in the overall main game.

As far as the other prizes they may have added to the columns each game, they could cut out the pre-taped modeling segments and just ramble off the prizes once won, ala Classic Concentration with the non-sponsored prizes announced by name only.  You could also limit prizes in each column to either 3 or 4 prizes to save more time in the long run ‐‐ more full columns more often

[Loogaroo]

I disagree - the mini-games were the only way they could incorporate premium prizes like high-end trips and cars into the mix. And since they always incorporated the dice into the mini-games, you could at least get more mileage out of your main gimmick that way.

No, the problem was that almost nobody was willing to risk losing the game. Even in situations where the only bad roll was a 3, even in games where the columns had nothing but cash ($1K in column 1, $3K in 2, and $5K in 3 was done several times over the course of the run), players could not be convinced to roll the dice. And it's not even that they were holding out for a bonus round with a big jackpot; even in 1987 a $10K bonus round was considered middle-of-the-road, and the odds of winning it weren't that great. So players were actively avoiding the game's primary mechanic to play a bonus round with maybe a 15% win rate. That's not good television, whether or not you have the mini-games.

[TimK2003]

I disagree - the mini-games were the only way they could incorporate premium prizes like high-end trips and cars into the mix. And since they always incorporated the dice into the mini-games, you could at least get more mileage out of your main gimmick that way.

No, the problem was that almost nobody was willing to risk losing the game. Even in situations where the only bad roll was a 3, even in games where the columns had nothing but cash ($1K in column 1, $3K in 2, and $5K in 3 was done several times over the course of the run), players could not be convinced to roll the dice. And it's not even that they were holding out for a bonus round with a big jackpot; even in 1987 a $10K bonus round was considered middle-of-the-road, and the odds of winning it weren't that great. So players were actively avoiding the game's primary mechanic to play a bonus round with maybe a 15% win rate. That's not good television, whether or not you have the mini-games.

As far as the early passes when there are only 1 couple of bad rolls, that's the fault of the contestant coordinators.  The CC's should either weed out the "overly cautious" players in mock games in the tryouts, and/or emphasize "going for it" unless the odds are clearly not in the roller's favor.

In this day and age, that's all the current contestant coordinators want in a possible contestant -- over-caffeinated people who will go all the way, or wanna-be actors who will follow the rules given to them.

Instead if of the mini-games, offer the "premium prizes" if a player clears 2-3 columns in the same game (2 for trip, all 3 for a car or $10,000).  That would also encourage players not to pass so early. You could also go first-incarnation of HR, and offer a ½ luxury prize space in the two columns that can't be cleared in one roll.  Again, to spur more all-or-nothing rolls.

But if you do this on GSN, the mini-game for super prizes issue is pretty much moot!

[jage]

It's even worse on GSN, if all you are playing for is 500 points and $1,000 for winning the game.
I guess you could give an insurance marker for each column cleared or game won.

[JasonA1]

I'm sure we covered a bit of this before, but regarding High Rollers, I can see why so many people passed. On Card Sharks, you might risk calling high/low on a 6. Odds are on your side, and your penalty for being wrong is a free play of the cards for your opponent, who might still be at the starting gate. If they fail, we go to another question.

On that all-cash High Rollers board, I'm risking the one bad roll for the potential to clear a $5,000 column (if indeed that column totals 12 or less at that point). If I clear anything, I only keep it by winning the game. If I come up with the one bad roll, my opponent wins that entire game of the match, and the cash columns are gone, to boot. In the long run, I'd rather try to win my way to the Big Numbers, where I'm guaranteed to win SOME money at least, and then play another match. Perhaps the original recipe of "one prize to a number" fixes some of this.

If this gets into bigger gambling probability, the difference of High Rollers (or any game show) vs. the casino is one losing round at the craps table doesn't mean they send me home. Not unless I do this.

-Jason

[Joe Mello]

Perhaps the original recipe of "one prize to a number" fixes some of this.

I wouldn't think so, especially since there were no insurance markers in that version of the front game.

I think $ale also suffers a bit of "the game discourages the players from playing," and it would likely only get worse with a modern adaptation. It's not that the format was entirely bad, but I feel like the biggest reason the show resonates with us because it asked a lot of questions quickly.

While I'm not terribly interested in seeing any game shows come back (I'd rather have new twists on old concepts) I feel like some formats would work in the current climate.

-Since hidden defector games seem to be all the rage, it would make sense to break out The Hustler or Dirty Rotten Cheaters
-With games like The Floor and 1% Club receiving acclaim, maybe another game of cleverness like Pass The Buck
-During the trivia app craze, I'm surprised no one really leaned into something like Paranoia

[JasonA1]

Perhaps the original recipe of "one prize to a number" fixes some of this.

I wouldn't think so, especially since there were no insurance markers in that version of the front game.

I was abbreviating because I tend to be verbose: I meant an overall changing of the main game to that mechanic, keeping what worked in the revivals (i.e. the insurance markers). In today's prize-lite world, if a revival had every number worth $x in cash, or if each concealed a mystery cash amount, at least you get the enticement of saying every number you clear is worth something (if you win the game).

-Jason

[Joe Mello]

It's still "one fail ends the game and wipes the bank" for a majority of the time. If you did something like start players out with a marker and/or have markers end the turn instead of forcing another roll, then that might change player behavior.

Although after thinking on it a little more, we'll never really know how much of those risk-averse passes were strategy and how much were "people are bad at math under pressure."

[tpirfan28]

Crazy idea I've always had to revive Line and Secret that is tough to execute apparently because rights are a mess:  The Panel Show.  Four celebrites, five games: lead with a round of TTTT, then Who's Who from WML, play a round of Line with one of the imposters, play IGAS with the other, then end with a mystery guest.  Revives Line and Secret in pieces.

That doesn't work?  Cross-Wits.

[BillCullen1]

Crazy idea I've always had to revive Line and Secret that is tough to execute apparently because rights are a mess:  The Panel Show.  Four celebrites, five games: lead with a round of TTTT, then Who's Who from WML, play a round of Line with one of the imposters, play IGAS with the other, then end with a mystery guest.  Revives Line and Secret in pieces.

I actually like this idea. Whether or not it can be executed . . . 

[Neumms]

…a good-but-not-great cash prize to the night's winner ($50k, let's say) and then a much nicer cash prize ($500k, for example) if they can break a certain score threshold.

If the stakes are that high—especially in cash—who would risk screwing that up to buy Instant Bargains?

[TLEberle]

…a good-but-not-great cash prize to the night's winner ($50k, let's say) and then a much nicer cash prize ($500k, for example) if they can break a certain score threshold.

If the stakes are that high—especially in cash—who would risk screwing that up to buy Instant Bargains?

that’s sort of on the prize buyers, yes? First class airfare and a week vacation with $5,000 cash would at least be worth a thought.