The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on February 15, 2009, 06:30:14 AM
-
I miss quality daytime game shows. I know the nature of the beast now for the major tv networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX) is to have talk shows and/or court shows all the livelong day.
One of my favorites growing up was Card Sharks. I had an idea to revive it, adding some different games in the mix, while still keeping the gameplay of the original as much as possible.
Two things about the original show that I didn't necessarily like were the straddling of games/matches, and the sometimes long, drawn-out pontificating by the contestants opinions on the various survey questions. My idea resolves both.
During the first segment of the show, the two players, one a returning champion, begin playing. Red deck up top for champs, blue deck on the bottom line for challengers.
The first segment of the show is called "HIGH/LOW SHOWDOWN". The top 5 cards from each deck are dealt face down. There is no freezing in this round, no questions in this round, and both players are required to play the 5 cards dealt to them, no changing of cards.
Starting with the returning champion, or the red deck in the event that it's 2 new players, the base card is revealed. Each one of the other 4 cards has a dollar value, $50, $100, $150 and $200 for the 5th and final card. The champ predicts if the 2nd card is higher or lower. If they are right, they score $50, if wrong, they score nothing. Then the blue player does the same thing. Then back to red again for the center card worth $100 if right, and so on. The player who is trailing before the final card is called gets to go first. The winner of the showdown is the player who scores the most money. The high scorer wins a $500 bonus, thus making $1,000 the possible maximum payout in this round. The winner of this round also receives a joker, and that joker can be used anytime during match play to change a card. I will explain more about that joker as we go along. If the High Low Showdown ends in a tie, neither player wins the $500 or the joker, but both players get to keep any money won in the round, regardless, whether it ends in a tie or not either.
Segment 2 is called "CLASSIC CARD SHARKS". This is played like the regular game from the 70s and 80s with the exception being, rather than asking long, drawn-out survey questions, regular standard trivia questions are asked, and lock out buzzers are used. The first player to ring in has 3 seconds to answer. If the correct answer is given, they win control, if they are wrong or take too long, the other player wins control automatically. Winning the question allows the player to keep or change the base card. Freezing on a bad card is allowed in this round. If a player has a joker from the High Low Showdown, they can turn that joker in for changing a card. A player can do this at any time, even if they did not win the question, but it can only be changed on a base card. If the base card is an 8, and the change is made and it's another 8 for example, they can use the joker to re-change it again. If the joker is not used at all and the player with the joker wins the match, they can take it to the Money Cards round to use there, I'll explain more of that later. If the player with the joker loses the match, they win $500 consolation for the joker. The winner of each game in match play during "CLASSIC CARD SHARKS" wins $500. As with the classic show, 4 toss up questions are played, the 4th & final being the SUDDEN DEATH question, and the pass or play option would apply. Again, if one player passes to the other, and that other player has the joker, they CAN use it to change the base card, even though they did not win the question. This would require a bit more strategy for the player in control to consider whether passing or playing would be wiser.
Also, during this segment, the winner of this 1st game of the match gets to play a special mini-game called "HIGH CARD". The next 3 cards from game one winner's deck are dealt out face down. To win a $1,000 bonus, they must predict which of the 3 cards is the highest ranking card. A correct guess wins the $1,000, an incorrect guess means no bonus money is won. If 2 of the 3 cards are both highest and the player selects either of those, they still win the $1,000. The reveal of the 3 cards would be done similar to how it's done on Price is Right's "Most Expensive" game, saving the chosen card to be revealed last, to build up suspense.
Segment 3 begins with game 2 of the best 2 out of 3 "CLASSIC CARD SHARKS" match. If after this game, the match is tied, a 1 question, 3 card sudden death tiebreaking game is played, like what was done during the latter part of the Eubanks run.
Segment 4 is the MONEY CARD$ round. One other difference for this show, if I were producer, would be to make the backs of the Money Cards GREEN. To me, money is green, and the backs of the MONEY Cards should be green too. I never liked that another red deck was used for the bonus game.
The cards would be dealt out similar to how it was done during Jim Perry's version. 3 cards on the bottom line, $500 of new money to bet, then 3 more cards on line 2, another $500. Minimum bets are $100, and players must be in $100 increments until the BIG BET, where at least 1/2 the money must be wagered. A $72,000 payoff is possible here. The base card on each line can be changed, but only the base card. Since $72,000 is far more than the $32,000 possible on Eubanks version, there is no changing one card per line anywhere you please. Also, because the stakes are so high, the original NBC rules would apply for a double, if you bet $3,000 lower than a king and another king turns up, too bad, you lose!
If the champion has the joker carried over from the match, they can use it to re-change one of the base cards if they wish.
After the Money Cards ends, win or lose, the day's champion is given a joker. If they did not use the other joker carried over, then they'd have 2. A board of 7 numbered cards is shown, one of which has a dollar sign, the other 6 say "NO". If the day's champion covers up the dollar sign card with the joker(s), they win a $25,000 bonus.
Returning champions can play for up to 5 shows, winning 5 matches, and a possible $500,000 total payout.
$1,000 for the High Low Showdown
$1,000 for winning 2 games of the match
$1,000 for the High Card mini-game
$72,000 maximum Money Cards payout
$25,000 Joker Jackpot game
$100,000 per day could be won x 5 days = $500,000. All shows would be self-contained too.
I'd be interested in hearing your remarks. I know the absence of the survey questions would be the biggest change to the game, and that many would be upset by this.
-
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'208210\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 06:30 AM\']During the first segment of the show, the two players, one a returning champion, begin playing. Red deck up top for champs, blue deck on the bottom line for challengers.[/quote]When people write proposals such as this one, I always wonder why they include cruft such as this.
The first segment of the show is called "HIGH/LOW SHOWDOWN". (snip)
This seems rather drawn out and tedious, to me.
Also, during this segment, the winner of this 1st game of the match gets to play a special mini-game called "HIGH CARD". The next 3 cards from game one winner's deck are dealt out face down. To win a $1,000 bonus, they must predict which of the 3 cards is the highest ranking card. A correct guess wins the $1,000, an incorrect guess means no bonus money is won.
I don't like the idea of having a bonus game just for the sake of having one. Also unnecessairly interferes with that contestant's cards.
Since $72,000 is far more than the $32,000 possible on Eubanks version, there is no changing one card per line anywhere you please. Also, because the stakes are so high, the original NBC rules would apply for a double, if you bet $3,000 lower than a king and another king turns up, too bad, you lose!
According to the inflation calculator, 32,000 in 1986 equaled just about $60,000 in 2007. $72,000 isn't a far cry from that. Not offering a push is a horrid rule--it'd be the equivalent of taking a player's money in blackjack when both they and the dealer had 20.
-
My opinion? If you snipped it so that you made your changes to Classic Card Sharks, I'd be fine with it. I don't know if you need some of the other things that you added. It would probably jumble things up.
I agree with Mark, though, on the no-push rule in Money Cards.
-
The final game is called the "Joker Jackpot" game? That sounds familiar...
Anyways, I'd keep it the same pretty much all the way through as the original. Money Cards for $40,000, straddled.
IF people really want an end game (attached to the Money Cards), here's my idea. 9 cards, one with the card "WIN" on it. For every $5,000 won during the Money Cards, a "bad" card is eliminated (yes, this is based on the H2 bonus game). If they find the WIN card, like H2, the prize will be determined on how many times they've won. First time a car, then $25K, then a trip, $50K, $100K etc.
If no end game though, I'd have a car given away in the main game by finding two halves of a car key dealt into the decks (yeah, another rip off, this time from Whammy!, ah well)
-
I mean, if they want to do Card Sharks, they should just do Card Sharks.
And the reason people explained their answers was because they were told to by the producers. Otherwise, why would everyone do it?
-
Two things about the original show that I didn't necessarily like were the straddling of games/matches, Really? You couldn't wait 23.5 hours to find out what happened next? One of the things I liked was that the game could begin any time.
and the sometimes long, drawn-out pontificating by the contestants opinions on the various survey questions. My idea resolves both.So you'd rather have it:
"How many people would buy a widget from China if it was half the price of an American one?"
"I'll say 48, Jim!"
Part of the fun was in hearing the reason why.
During the first segment of the show, the two players, one a returning champion, begin playing. Red deck up top for champs, blue deck on the bottom line for challengers.Better than green and orange, I guess..
The first segment of the show is called "HIGH/LOW SHOWDOWN". The top 5 cards from each deck are dealt face down. There is no freezing in this round, no questions in this round, and both players are required to play the 5 cards dealt to them, no changing of cards.
Starting with the returning champion, or the red deck in the event that it's 2 new players, the base card is revealed. Each one of the other 4 cards has a dollar value, $50, $100, $150 and $200 for the 5th and final card. The champ predicts if the 2nd card is higher or lower. If they are right, they score $50, if wrong, they score nothing. Then the blue player does the same thing. Then back to red again for the center card worth $100 if right, and so on. The player who is trailing before the final card is called gets to go first. The winner of the showdown is the player who scores the most money.
So if I have this right, you play the cards you get, scoring up to $500 for making it across...then you can score up to $450, then $350, then $200?
Does this seem counter-intuitive to anyone else? Did I misunderstand/mis-read it?
The high scorer wins a $500 bonus, thus making $1,000 the possible maximum payout in this round. The winner of this round also receives a joker, and that joker can be used anytime during match play to change a card. I will explain more about that joker as we go along. If the High Low Showdown ends in a tie, neither player wins the $500 or the joker, but both players get to keep any money won in the round, regardless, whether it ends in a tie or not either.
An unhappy tie? Really?
Segment 2 is called "CLASSIC CARD SHARKS". This is played like the regular game from the 70s and 80s with the exception being, rather than asking long, drawn-out survey questions, regular standard trivia questions are asked, and lock out buzzers are used. The first player to ring in has 3 seconds to answer. If the correct answer is given, they win control, if they are wrong or take too long, the other player wins control automatically.
One of the things that made Card Sharks stand out was that the show used questions you weren't going to hear on any other show. Sure, you save a few seconds each round, but at the sacrifice of the show's soul. Blech.
Winning the question allows the player to keep or change the base card. Freezing on a bad card is allowed in this round.
Freezing on a bad card is the POINT of freezing in the first place.
If a player has a joker from the High Low Showdown, they can turn that joker in for changing a card.
So instead of giving players an organic reward for winning the question, you're going to add a new rule AND make it harder to win.
If the player with the joker loses the match, they win $500 consolation for the joker.
This is silly. Contestants on Millionaire don't get bonus money for losing while leaving lifelines.
This would require a bit more strategy for the player in control to consider whether passing or playing would be wiser.
This requires much more rule explanation than during the rest of the show when you want the explanation to be quick so you don't lose momentum.
Also, during this segment, the winner of this 1st game of the match gets to play a special mini-game called "HIGH CARD". The next 3 cards from game one winner's deck are dealt out face down. To win a $1,000 bonus, they must predict which of the 3 cards is the highest ranking card. A correct guess wins the $1,000, an incorrect guess means no bonus money is won. If 2 of the 3 cards are both highest and the player selects either of those, they still win the $1,000. The reveal of the 3 cards would be done similar to how it's done on Price is Right's "Most Expensive" game, saving the chosen card to be revealed last, to build up suspense.
Why? Why not just bring out three metal boxes, one with $1,000, two with nothing?
Segment 4 is the MONEY CARD$ round. One other difference for this show, if I were producer, would be to make the backs of the Money Cards GREEN. To me, money is green, and the backs of the MONEY Cards should be green too. I never liked that another red deck was used for the bonus game.
People don't have green playing cards, typically. They have red backs or blue backs. That's why.
I'd be interested in hearing your remarks. I know the absence of the survey questions would be the biggest change to the game, and that many would be upset by this.
What ruined Card Sharks 2001? Changing from the most recognizable parts of the original show. You've done so many things to shoehorn a match into an episode that the format is all over the place.
You can say "We have a possibility of giving away $100,000 every day!" but big money doesn't solve the problems. Card Sharks would work if the Money Cards had a $16,000 payoff or $288,000. And I think the second bonus game is silly. You're going to end the show on a downer more often than not, and that's never good.
I miss the old daytime games, too. But I wouldn't tear them down, rebuild them randomly and say "Hey NBC, if you want to call me about Blockbusters 2009, go ahead!". I'd say "I sure wish there were more game shows on TV," and that would be it, because the affiliates aren't going to give back their time, and court shows are inexpensive to produce.
I have looked this over three times, I cannot figure out where the quote-thing went wonky.
-
How to revive Card Sharks...
Make it more like this (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VD7LRNuvZU&feature=related\"), less like this. (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vte5xCYYcQ\")
/Better poetry though
//I completely forgot how awesome that open was
-
It's funny, I've said about Card Sharks 2K1: "The theme was pretty good. The set wasn't that bad. And really, the logo was pretty damn cool. Too bad the game sucked so bad."
-
Card Sharks 2001 wasn't that bad. I mean, if the original Card Shark NEVER existed, and the 2001 version was the first of its kind, it would be a different story.
Still, it would've been nice if CS2001 kept true to its old predecessor (the red/blue decks, returning champions, poll questions).
-
[quote name=\'gsgalaxy82\' post=\'208231\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 03:42 PM\']
It's funny, I've said about Card Sharks 2K1: "The theme was pretty good. The set wasn't that bad. And really, the logo was pretty damn cool. Too bad the game sucked so bad."
[/quote]
I said the same thing about "Temptation". I watched some of the clip, and almost forgot that the show existed...our local affiliate aired it at 2 am (after an infomercial). Can't say I blame them. :-)
As for the proposal...there's just too much going on here. The constant explanations of answers kinda irked me too, but it gave both contestants a chance to earn their shot at the cards. And plus, it fit in with the "high-low" nature of the game.
I have no problem with straddling, and I'd rather see a more relaxed atmosphere, then rushing to fit everything into 22 minutes (my main problem with syndie D/ND), or having to streeeeetch the show's material out because you've reached your end game 17 minutes into the show (one problem out of many with "Temptation").
-
Two things about the original show that I didn't necessarily like were the straddling of games/matches, and the sometimes long, drawn-out pontificating by the contestants opinions on the various survey questions. My idea resolves both.
I'd posit that you haven't resolved the first very well, and that the second is more of a solution looking for a problem.
My understanding of your format is that an episode contains a pre-game round, a complete Card Sharks main game with trivia questions, a Cashword-style minigame shoehorned in the middle, the Money Cards, plus the CS86 car game.
The most obvious reason Card Sharks straddled (well, besides "because they said so") is because the game takes a very variable amount of time. There could be 11 survey questions in a match, plus enough high-low calls and incorrect calls to put practically the entire deck in the frame, or there could be two questions plus a couple quick trips down the row of cards.
The only thing you've done to counter this is quick-hit trivia questions instead of survey questions with longer defenses of the answers given. This particular improvement probably happened by accident simply because you dislike the contestants defending responses to survey questions.
CS01 did a better job of avoiding straddling than you, because they KNEW there would be seven cards in each round, and the only variability was in the clip chips and card changes.
-
"How many people would buy a widget from China if it was half the price of an American one?"
"I'll say 48, Jim!"
Part of the fun was in hearing the reason why.
I agree. Even though the contestants were making stuff up as they went along, part of the fun of Card Sharks is trying to guess how many people would admit to some crazy thing, and then trying to justify why -- there's great play-along value for the home viewer.
I always thought Power of 10 should have had a bit of that.
-
I think the producers encouraged them to give reasoning behind their answers. Yeah, they might've been making things up.
To be honest, if I brought back Card Sharks, I'd keep the theme song and logo from '01, and make the set kinda like Feud, as in, retro but modern.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'208245\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 05:14 PM\']
"How many people would buy a widget from China if it was half the price of an American one?"
"I'll say 48, Jim!"
Part of the fun was in hearing the reason why.
I agree. Even though the contestants were making stuff up as they went along, part of the fun of Card Sharks is trying to guess how many people would admit to some crazy thing, and then trying to justify why -
[/quote]
Part of the fun, yes, and a *great* deal of the high-concept game: the questions are high-low calling; so is the card play.
There's got to be another way to avoid straddling matches (and a way to limit the chatty explanations, if you feel you must) without cutting the survey questions.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208254\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 09:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'208245\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 05:14 PM\']
"How many people would buy a widget from China if it was half the price of an American one?"
"I'll say 48, Jim!"
Part of the fun was in hearing the reason why.
I agree. Even though the contestants were making stuff up as they went along, part of the fun of Card Sharks is trying to guess how many people would admit to some crazy thing, and then trying to justify why -
[/quote]
Part of the fun, yes, and a *great* deal of the high-concept game: the questions are high-low calling; so is the card play.
There's got to be another way to avoid straddling matches (and a way to limit the chatty explanations, if you feel you must) without cutting the survey questions.
[/quote]
Hmm...
could you play with two longer rows of cards (6 or 7) with four players, with two players playing a game each and the winners of those two games getting to play one game for the right to go to the Money Cards?
Or would too much time be left over?
-
I've wondered if a decent amount of viewers would tune in if you brought back Card Sharks(or any other quality 70s or 80s game) with virtually no changes. Keep the same game play, bring in a quality host(not some 80s has been sitcom star), maybe up the dollar value slightly for inflation(NO Million$$). Avoid the caffeine induced contestants, sign raising crazies and families joining them to broadcast their tear jerking stories about how they need the money(Howie: "Your new offer is $200,000" Contestant: "We're unemployed and really need to feed and clothe our 6 children, but Grandma says we can do better...NO DEAL!!"). I know the nets are worried this would only draw the eyes of the blue hairs, but if one would give it a try, it just might work as counter programming to all the court shows, Springers, etc..
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'208255\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 06:57 PM\']Or would too much time be left over?[/quote]The problem is that the game has too many variables. You can change the number of cards, or the number of questions, but the unpredictability is what makes the show so interesting.
The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.
The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208259\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 10:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'208255\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 06:57 PM\']Or would too much time be left over?[/quote]The problem is that the game has too many variables. You can change the number of cards, or the number of questions, but the unpredictability is what makes the show so interesting.
The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.
The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.
[/quote]
That, in the nutshell, is about all you can do. It's HS'98, basically. And if you want to alter it a little, do like they did and make 3rd games worth double, then quad, etc. for catch-up purposes. Either way, HS got it right in the last season when they just played it out and let the best 2 out of 3 just happen. It's hard to say that that idea killed HS only because it was on its last legs anyway. Had the straddle been in effect from day 1, you never know.
As far as the Money Cards go, I have no problem with the "one change per line" rule from the 80s. With the push rule, I used to believe the rule should be that only the 2 and ace cannot push so that there is always a risk. I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' post=\'208265\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:50 AM\']
I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.
[/quote]
So what you're saying if I bet all on a deuce or ace on the first two rows and push, I'm fine, but I'm screwed if I do that on top?
Pass. Not really fair.
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' post=\'208265\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 10:50 PM\']That, in the nutshell, is about all you can do. It's HS'98, basically. And if you want to alter it a little, do like they did and make 3rd games worth double, then quad, etc. for catch-up purposes. [/quote] If I wanted that, that's what I would have said.
I had a problem with single-single-double when it was used on Name That Tune, I had a problem when it was employed on Hollywood Squares the first time. When you're playing the same exact game several times, it seems silly to make later games worth more just "for catch up purposes" The game didn't change, why should the game value change?
Super Password did it fine, because the first game was a practice, then it was two-of-three, and you knew the goal. Family Feud is fine because you have to win the last question, and both teams can see how the game is progressing. But when you're playing to a times-up-horn, allow the player who won more times to keep the championship.
Either way, HS got it right in the last season when they just played it out and let the best 2 out of 3 just happen. It's hard to say that that idea killed HS only because it was on its last legs anyway. Had the straddle been in effect from day 1, you never know.
I don't think it would have made a lick of difference. Some formats just go bad after a while, and the audience had seen enough. That said, I preferred the best-of-three.
As far as the Money Cards go, I have no problem with the "one change per line" rule from the 80s. With the push rule, I used to believe the rule should be that only the 2 and ace cannot push so that there is always a risk. I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.
I don't understand why you would choose this change. One, you're changing the rules midstream, which will confuse viewers. Second, you're taking away momentum. Rather than the obvious "All of it higher!" and waiting to see if it'll be a win or a push, you're allowing for the match (and show in this case) to end on a massive downer just because you don't want twos and aces to be foregone conclusions.
-
The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.
The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.
Not necessarily.
Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.)
Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).
Either way, most cash at the end of the show wins. If the show ends mid-game, each player earns $100/card scored.)
All that said: I'd rather see a 2-out-of-3 match with straddling.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208285\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 12:58 PM\']Not necessarily.
Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.) [/quote] This isn't bad.
Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).
This is just horrible. You're not winning based on how well you did, you're winning based on how lucky you were in a portion of the game that has nothing to do with the main point of the show.
And for that matter, how does either of these setups improve the show at all?
All that said: I'd rather see a 2-out-of-3 match with straddling.
There is not an ounce of disagreement from me on this point.
-
[quote name='TLEberle' date='Feb 16 2009, 04:33 PM' post='208287']
[quote name='Clay Zambo' post='208285' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:58 PM']Not necessarily.
Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.) [/quote] This isn't bad.
Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).
This is just horrible. You're not winning based on how well you did, you're winning based on how lucky you were in a portion of the game that has nothing to do with the main point of the show. [/quote]
And for that matter, how does either of these setups improve the show at all?
[/quote]
I'm quite confident I'll screw up the quotes if I try to insert my comments, so I'll just leave 'em here.
Of my pitches, on which I spent just a little more thoughtful time than it took to type them, I prefer the mini-money cards deal.
The score-from-a-row-of-cards thing is uninspired, I'll grant. It was an example, though, of another way to score a non-straddling show without playing single-single-double-quad. I will offer, though, that it doesn't have *nothing* to do with the point of the show, which is to be a Card Shark. The Sharkier player would always choose the high value... ;)
How does either of them improve the show? It doesn't. Unless you, as a network exec, say to me, "We'd love to revive Card Sharks but it can't straddle. Fix it, or your show won't get on." I'd say neither proposal (and particularly not the former) *harms* the show. And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.
(Edit: Apparently I screwed up the quotes anyway.) Sorry.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.[/quote]Are you kidding? That'd RULE.
"Astro! Bring in the plaintiff!"
"ROH-KAY!"
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208291\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 05:07 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.[/quote]Are you kidding? That'd RULE.
"Astro! Bring in the plaintiff!"
"ROH-KAY!"
[/quote]
Well played. But that's the ONLY court show I'd watch. (I can hear the theme song now: "Jane, his bailiff!")
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']Of my pitches, on which I spent just a little more thoughtful time than it took to type them, I prefer the mini-money cards deal.[/quote] I just thought of this now, but you're taking away from the main game to play a secondary bonus, and then to go back to the main game, and then eventually to the Big Horkin' Bonus at the end. If the mini bonus money (100-200-400-800, it sounded like) was totted up to see who won, then at least it would make sense. But I still think that going simple and saying whoever wins the most games plays the big Money Cards at the end is the most elegant solution, and that no tinkering is necessary.
How does either of them improve the show? It doesn't. Unless you, as a network exec, say to me, "We'd love to revive Card Sharks but it can't straddle. Fix it, or your show won't get on." I'd say neither proposal (and particularly not the former) *harms* the show. And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.
The reason I asked that is this: anyone can throw together a slap-dash bunch of ideas and say "Here's my way to bring back Card Sharks for the new generation of willing viewers." At the very least you shouldn't make the game any worse, but every idea that you do tack on to the rules should be really good, because you're making the rule book fatter, and giving the audience more things to keep track of. When I watch a game show, I only have patience to keep track of two or three ancillary rules that may or may not pop up during a show. When people throw in things like "The first half is played this way, the second half is played another way, there's a mini-game in the middle and then a second bonus..." and so on, I'm already looking for something else to watch.
-
I've had a couple thoughts on how to revive CS as a non-straddler rattling around in my brain since 2001-ish, so here goes.
In the main game, winning a survey question is worth $50 or $100. Winning the cards is worth $250 or $500 (therefore, nailing the whole set of questions but blowing the cards will still put you behind in the game.) From Round 3 on, double the money (I know, I know, it's doubling for the sake of doubling) to $100/$200 and $500/$1,000.
Too complicated and/or the doubling is grinding your gears? Fair enough. Play for a flat $250/$500 a game. Most cash when the bell rings goes to the Money Cards. And as a way to keep the front game drama building in blowouts, if one player shuts out the other in the front game, the base values on the Money Cards get doubled.
For either version:
- The bell means an automatic sudden death question to decide the game at hand.
- If the score is tied after that final round, it's a quick 3-card shootout with no questions. Winner of the last game gets the play/pass option. Turning both players' base cards face-up, as was done toward the end of the CBS run, is an option.
- Base values on the Money Cards are $250 and $500, making the almost unreachable perfect score an even $40K (or $80K if you go along with the doubling for the sweep idea.)
- I'd like to see the prize cards in there, but if they aren't, no biggie.
- The hell with the Car Game.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'208307\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 04:45 PM\']- I'd like to see the prize cards in there, but if they aren't, no biggie.[/quote] It was a nice way to differentiate between the two versions.
- The hell with the Car Game.
Preach on!
-
- The hell with the Car Game.
Either that, or incorporate a car giveaway into the Money Cards. If the contestant has at least, say, $25,000 [out of a possible $80,000, using the $500 and $1000 starters] going into the Big Bet and plays the last card right, the contestant wins the cash and the car.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208294\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 05:42 PM\']
If the mini bonus money (100-200-400-800, it sounded like) was totted up to see who won, then at least it would make sense.[/quote]
That's *exactly* what I meant.
The idea was to keep building a little suspense. Of course, the possibility exists that player A wins two games and maxes out the mini-bonus so player B can't mount a comeback in a third (probably truncated) game, but that's not gonna happen every day.
-
I've been away for a long time, but I have to put in my two cents here. Last spring for CS's 30th anniversary, I developed my own idea for this that combined elements from all previous versions (yes, even 2001). Ideally, best-of-three matches that straddle is best, but if you absolutely must do self-contained, I'd start each match with a warm-up round. It starts by turning over the champion's base card, then asking him/her to pass or play. Very simply, it's a round calling high-low without questions; if a player slips up or freezes, control goes to the other player and, if the last call was wrong, as a penalty he/she can change the base card. First player to complete his/her line earns $500 in chips.
After the warm-up round comes classic CS, five cards per line, four high-low questions, with the high-low questions being a mix of human nature polls and educated guesses, maybe with a few visual questions. Those are played the same as we're used to, except winning a question also earns $100 in chips, plus $500 in cash for a perfect guess ($100 in the case of a 10-person polling group, just like 1986-89). For the play of the cards, I've thrown in some steroids: running the board on your first try in any five-card round is also a $500 cash bonus. Each round is worth $500 in chips, with bonuses not counting toward the score. First to $2,000 in chips wins the game. If time is running out, the next question automatically becomes sudden death. If neither player reaches $2,000 after that, each round from then on is three cards and one sudden-death question. The question itself has no chip value, but the round is worth $1,000 in chips. The winner takes his/her chips to the Money Cards--and I'd have him/her cut the cards on camera before going to break--while the other wins the obligatory parting gifts.
The structure for MC would depend on the prize budget--we're in a bad economy, remember?--so it could go anywhere from $250/$500 (with a max win $40,000) up to the $700/$700/$700 of the 2001 version, meaning a potential win of over $100,000 for seven cards ($102,200 to be exact). If the budget won't let you spare an extra $2,000 to $3,000 every game, you could just spread the chips won in the front game evenly across the three levels (ex. $2,300 --> $800/$800/$700), but I know you people would prefer the player just keep their front game winnings and play the MC with house money. One change per line with the next card off the top of the deck, and all doubles are pushes. And finally, I would employ the Ken Jennings rule, i.e. champions can stay as long as they keep winning.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' post=\'211404\' date=\'Mar 28 2009, 07:11 PM\']
I've been away for a long time
[/quote]
Hadn't noticed.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' post=\'211404\' date=\'Mar 28 2009, 06:11 PM\']
snip[/quote]After the tasteless remark you made about Randy Amasia (multiple times, might I add), I can't believe you'd come back here again.
Besides, I thought we were a bunch of egotistical self-centered jerks. (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15919&view=findpost&p=190588\")
-
Ignoring the other stuff above (because I figure it's implied):
a) I don't see the point of the "warm-up" round. At all.
b) What's the deal with "chips?" There's no reason to assign any arbitrary unit of measurement to what is effectively money. There is nothing at all wrong with "Winner keeps their cash."
c) If you're going to insist the cards be cut on camera (and I have no idea why anyone would care), you're not going to do it before the break, you're going to do it after, immediately before they are dealt. Why? If you do it before, the savvy viewer knows that everyone is going to be standing around "during the break" doing nothing, and everyone else is subliminally going to get that same vibe; they might not be able to put their finger on exactly what's bugging them, but something will be. If you just say "Hey, Money Cards after the break!" without any lead in, y'all STILL might be standing around, but it's not nearly as ostentatious.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' post=\'211404\' date=\'Mar 28 2009, 06:11 PM\']
I've been away for a long time, but I have to put in my two cents here.
[/quote]
Why?
I honestly thought you were banned after your last to do. Which I'm sure isn't going to garner the apology it requires.
-
Avoiding the crap-storm...
I thought I was the only one who kinda liked CS01 outside of its horrid gameplay. o_o
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'211412\' date=\'Mar 28 2009, 10:45 PM\']
Avoiding the crap-storm...
I thought I was the only one who kinda liked CS01 outside of its horrid gameplay. o_o
[/quote]
I liked it ouside its horrid gameplay. And horridly bland host. And horridly bland models. And horridly bland set. And horridly uninspired bonus round. And horrid lack of drama. And horridly cheesy "Las vegas knockoff" logo. Other than all that it was good
-
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'211430\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 12:40 PM\']
I liked it ouside its horrid gameplay. And horridly bland host. And horridly bland models. And horridly bland set. And horridly uninspired bonus round. And horrid lack of drama. And horridly cheesy "Las vegas knockoff" logo. Other than all that it was good
[/quote]
I lol'd.
Welcome! :-)
-
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'211430\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 11:40 AM\']I liked it ouside its horrid gameplay. And horridly bland host. And horridly bland models. And horridly bland set. And horridly uninspired bonus round. And horrid lack of drama. And horridly cheesy "Las vegas knockoff" logo. Other than all that it was good.[/quote]
I think you'll fit in just fine here.
Seriously, that was great. :-)
-
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'211430\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 09:40 AM\']I liked it ouside its horrid gameplay. And horridly bland host. And horridly bland models. And horridly bland set. And horridly uninspired bonus round. And horrid lack of drama. And horridly cheesy "Las vegas knockoff" logo. Other than all that it was good
[/quote]Wow, where have you BEEN all this time? That was quite an auspicious entry. Well done.
Regarding Card Sharks: Melange Edition, I really don't see the point. CS doesn't need a warm-up round. Calling the in-game currency "chips" and then telling everyone that the chips are now money seems an unnecessary complication. As are awarding money for a question that's meant to already payoff by awarding control. And then the convoluted "some money, er, chips count toward the finish line but some don't, and the finish line is too far to reach during a half hour show."
That's really an awful lot to ask of a viewer who has bought in to the premise.
For all the reasons to dislike Card Sharks: 2001 (and Gawd knows there were plenty of them) at least the game made sense. Everything worked together and had a purpose. There was nothing extraneous. Unfortunately they cut in the wrong places.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'211447\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 04:26 PM\']
And then the convoluted "some money, er, chips count toward the finish line but some don't, and the finish line is too far to reach during a half hour show."[/quote]
I suspect this was precisely why he's going for the "chips" metaphor; to differentiate between "score money" and "bonus money." Problem is that 47 billion other shows don't seem to have that problem without the strained comparison.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'211447\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 07:26 PM\']
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'211430\' date=\'Mar 29 2009, 09:40 AM\']I liked it ouside its horrid gameplay. And horridly bland host. And horridly bland models. And horridly bland set. And horridly uninspired bonus round. And horrid lack of drama. And horridly cheesy "Las vegas knockoff" logo. Other than all that it was good
[/quote]Wow, where have you BEEN all this time? That was quite an auspicious entry. Well done.[/quote]
I've been lurking for the most part. Wanted to get a feel for the forum.
Also, I just realized that my post essentially boils down to "Gary Kroeger was the only part of CS01 that didn't suck", which I think is totally true.