On the Cover

[whewfan]

The format: Not much of a change, only minor change in the main game is that while the covers are cleverly (to quote Yogi Berra) "paired up in threes", the contestants now only have to give the name of the celeb instead of the punny answer.  The biggest change is the bonus round, which is similar to the first round. The player has 20 seconds to identify 9 celebs on covers, and each correct response reveals a portion of a mystery cover which the contestant must identify the celeb. (Think of NL's Funny Money's bonus game, but the contestant has no choice of which pieces to reveal)

The set: The set is darker, and sleeker than the old set, and the podiums have a much cleaner look. .

Mark Walberg: Mark is much more comfortable and a lot looser, just as he was on Russian Roulette... that's the way it should be! This makes the game much more fun to watch.

Overall, the minor tweaks make On the Cover much more entertaining.

On a scale of 1-10, I give On the Cover.... an 8

On another note... Trista looks awfully familiar... wasn't she on a game show recently?

[Brandon Brooks]

When I judge PAX orginals I am always skeptical.  I thought Hollywood Showdown to be boring, Supermarket Sweep not a terrible effere, but to be lacking something, and the newest version of STYL to be putrid.  On The Cover isn't bad at all, dare I say, it's even kinda good.  First of all, I love the set--very traditional while modern with none of that WWTBAM b.s.  The game keeps me sorta enthralled, and I think the bonus round is an improvement.   I think this is a commendable effort on the part of PAX.

BTW, I think Balderdash is good too.  KILL STYD!

Brandon Brooks

[brianhenke]

There were two other changes. The contestants are standing on the podiums at the beginning of the show. (In the shows that aired in May, which I pointed out, they were introduced one at a time).

    The point values were inflated.

    Round 1 - 100 points per cover answered correctly.

    Round 2 - 250 points per question at the start of the round. For each question that a cover is not selected, it's increased by 250 points.

    Round 3 - First set of questions - 500 points. Second round - 750 points. Third round - 1000 points.

    Bonus round - The format is much better than the original. At least the prize was much better than going to Newport Beach.

    On the PAX gradind curve, it's a B+.

    Brian

    100 plus 100 equals 600?

    We want some more pro wrestling (STILL) and NASCAR questions (oh, and OTC could've asked one tonight!)

[The Ol' Guy]

Once you get past the idea of the gimmicky covers, the idea of increasing the value each turn on the unpicked question/cover is really growing on me. Since you get the same level of question whether the value is 250 or 2500 points, there is the strategy of waiting a few turns to pick a cover that you feel very comfortable with to kick you into a comfortable lead - as long as you're in control. One slip, and an opponent can nab it and catch up or beat you. Do you take a high value cover now, or pick a smaller value one, hope to answer it first, and by doing so, kick up the value of the cover/question you'd really like by another 250? Sometimes I think the gloss and glitz of the celeb magazine shots covers up a really interesting game mechanic. You have some control over the value of a question by deciding when you're going to go for it. Think I'll watch it a bit more often than I thought I might....

[Clay Zambo]

I like the new set a lot.  And the announcer's certainly better.  If there were Varilites, I didn't notice them; I give big points to any show that can get along without them, these days.

Let me see if I got this straight: they trimmed down the warm-up rounds so as to make time to read the headlines on the fake covers.  I'm glad the writers' gets more exposure, but Mark seemed forced to point out the humor.  The "theme" in each set of covers (Huey/Dewey/Louie or whatever) is clever, but a waste of cleverness if the players don't have to use those names in their answers.  (Didn't a player trip over that aspect last night, in fact?

Game-mechanically: are there so many potential points in the final round that the rest of the game is meaningless? Like my distinguished collague from the previous post, I really like the second round's strategic aspect of building up points by waiting for a question.

The endgame is somewhat "borrowed" from Funny Money, but that didn't bother me--nor did it thrill me, though.   Certainly the hard part is winning the spaces in the first place.  What was the point of giving a "clue" to the bonus answer in the intro to the show?  And more, what was the point of repeating it in the bump-back from the commercial prior to the bonus round?

Overall...I think it's a better show than it was.

[SplitSecond]

Having not seen the set the first time around, I must say that I like this one, despite it's generic-ness.  It's really good at giving the illusion of depth on what is undoubtedly a tiny stage.

I applaud them for going fairly live-to-tape, even though it leaves a couple of awkward moments in there.  Hopefully that leaves room for the show (and Mark) to grow in terms of spontaneity - something a lot of latter-day new shows sorely lack.

The setups for the third round are indeed very labored and really drag things down.  

The arithmetic (as opposed to geometric) point increase for the unused covers in the second round seems not to lend itself as much to strategy, as The Ol' Guy suggests, as it simply does to keep unwanted material from stagnating up on the board (something Win Ben Stein's Money surely didn't accomplish).  Most contestants would seem to just forego the clever strategy and keep picking the high-value covers.  If one were to start the covers at 1 point apiece and multiply the value by 10 (Add-A-One) each time one is unused, then strategy would really be a key element.  Of course, this would have to be the final round, given the possibility for 10,000 or 100,000 point covers - or greater.

All that said, there is nothing so mortally wrong with this show (or Balderdash) for that matter that I would be ashamed to root for its success.  Their success won't necessarily skyrocket the cause of traditional game show, but failure could mean two more nails in an already tight coffin - for now.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Aug 10 2004, 09:13 AM\']I like the new set a lot.  And the announcer's certainly better.  If there were Varilites, I didn't notice them; I give big points to any show that can get along without them, these days.[/quote]
Is "Mitch" Mitch Craig, who also seems to be Pax's image voice?

I didn't see either ep of v.1, but for the most part it was OK and worth checking out again.  The jokey third round is a little too much, though, material-wise.  Walberg's good, as he was in "Russian Roulette," although I preferred his snarkier "Roulette" side.  Nice looking set.  Non-descript music (even if you don't like the think and reveal cues on "Balderdash," at least the music's something you can pin down--and I do like the theme on that show).

At least you get the feeling that these shows could stick around for a while, since Paxson's always said that he'd rather hit singles than go for a home run (which in his case would have to be a grand slam).

Unfortunately for Marky Mark, that one Fox show seems to dog him repeatedly, as Chicago Sun-Times critic Phil Rosenthal notes in his EW What to Watch column carbon today (2nd item).  Probably threw out the "RR" screener the minute he got it from GSN.

[TLEberle]

Since I've been on a "points" thing for a couple weeks:

The increase in the points seems to be across the board: a 7,000 point win this time is roughly equal to a 1,750 point win from the first two shows, which must mean that they think that more points makes either for a better show, or it makes the contestants 'smarter,' or something.
 
I really dig the increasing points mechanic in round two, and I'm shocked that no one has ever done it before.  I wonder if the creators were playing a couple games of "Puerto Rico" the night they came up with it...

I like the third rack round, but they went into far too much detail for the parody covers; I liked it just as much when they used real ones.  Still an ok round, but damn, there were lots of points available.

Bonus game: like that too.  Beats the hell out of the old round.

On the whole, I'm surprised that I like a show about pop culture this much, but it's a decent format.  It's not the best thing since sliced bread, and not even the best since "Balderdash", but it doesn't suck.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Aug 10 2004, 02:04 PM\']
The increase in the points seems to be across the board: a 7,000 point win this time is roughly equal to a 1,750 point win from the first two shows, which must mean that they think that more points makes either for a better show, or it makes the contestants 'smarter,' or something.
 [/quote]
 From the creators of Mo' Money syndrome .... it's....

Plent' Points Syndrome! or PPsyn for short.

I've just trademarked it.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'brianhenke\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 11:15 PM\'] I want some more pro wrestling (STILL) and NASCAR questions because after 5 years, I still have no idea how to program a signature. [/quote]
They could have also asked some questions about the USFL. But they didn't.
They could have also asked some questions about the NHL. But they didn't.
They could--oh, screw it.

We really don't give a damn if they could have asked one or not.

[thgames65]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Aug 10 2004, 09:13 AM\']Game-mechanically: are there so many potential points in the final round that the rest of the game is meaningless? Like my distinguished collague from the previous post, I really like the second round's strategic aspect of building up points by waiting for a question.

The endgame is somewhat "borrowed" from Funny Money, but that didn't bother me--nor did it thrill me, though.   Certainly the hard part is winning the spaces in the first place.  What was the point of giving a "clue" to the bonus answer in the intro to the show?  And more, what was the point of repeating it in the bump-back from the commercial prior to the bonus round?
[/quote]
There are two ways to approach the progressive-point nature of the second round:

1)  As previously mentioned, leave a cover alone to build up the points, then try to make a killing.

2)  When in the lead and in control of the board, keep picking low-point covers as a "four-corners" offense.  Don't give your opponents the opportunity to catch up quickly.

The amount of points in the 3rd round can overwhelm the significance of the earlier rounds, but a 100 point margin at the end is still the difference of a single round one cover.

The voice-over clue about the identity of the final cover is not given to the contestants.  They only have the category to help them along with the uncovered pieces.

Tim H.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Aug 10 2004, 12:04 PM\'] It's not the best thing since sliced bread, and not even the best since "Balderdash" [/quote]
I'm almost afraid to ask, but...

What, then, *is* the best thing since Balderdash?

[ChuckNet]

From the creators of Mo' Money syndrome .... it's....

Plent' Points Syndrome! or PPsyn for short.

I've just trademarked it.

I like it. :-) Glad I'm not the only one who dislikes points being offered in the hundreds and/or thousands...it just seems unwieldly, IMO.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'thgames65\' date=\'Aug 10 2004, 03:37 PM\'] The amount of points in the 3rd round can overwhelm the significance of the earlier rounds, but a 100 point margin at the end is still the difference of a single round one cover.

 [/quote]
 Which is fine with me.  Let a big whompin' come-from-behind victory be possible but a definite occurance, as in the final round of Louie's Feud.

The voice-over clue about the identity of the final cover is not given to the contestants.  They only have the category to help them along with the uncovered pieces.

Fine and good.  So use it in the opening of the show if you want to; bringing it back as the bump-back from commercial before the endgame seems unnecessary.

[ed1202]

The voice-over clue about the identity of the final cover is not given to the contestants.  They only have the category to help them along with the uncovered pieces.

Fine and good. So use it in the opening of the show if you want to; bringing it back as the bump-back from commercial before the endgame seems unnecessary.

I imagine it's for the benefit of those of us who tune in late.  Oh, wait, I have a Tivo.  Never mind...

-Ed