The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: aaron sica on August 16, 2024, 12:20:43 PM
-
DoorNumberFour's facebook post about the flawed scoring of NYSI74 got me thinking. Was that the worst scoring flaw in a game show? If not, what was?
-
In terms of game balance, having the first two questions worth a point and the third worth twenty on The Cheap Show has to set the pace.
-
Prize Puzzle. Since Wheel seems to be stripping away non-cash prizes little by little (apparently bonus round cars are the latest casualty), we might as well make the Wheel prize and the Prize Puzzle bonuses that don't count towards a player's score.
Also, I don't like that a family on Feud who has a strong showing on the first two boards gets sandbagged by an anemic double point round by design. We did the work to get 172 points and now the Double round is only worth 110? Nah, give me a chance to win in 3 boards or just revert the scoring to S-S-S-D-T.
-
Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.
-
Body Language is what came to mind for me.
-
Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.
Body Language is what came to mind for me.
Y'know, I thought about both of these, Body Language specifically. But I argued against them if only because in both instances, it's paid practice until you get to the money that matters, which is still a very fair best 2 out of 3.
-
Also, I don't like that a family on Feud who has a strong showing on the first two boards gets sandbagged by an anemic double point round by design. We did the work to get 172 points and now the Double round is only worth 110? Nah, give me a chance to win in 3 boards or just revert the scoring to S-S-S-D-T.
Much like how The $10,000 Pyramid settled into a pattern of two front games and two WC tries, it appears that Family Feud was willing to follow the pattern of Match Game and a game just ends when it does. A game where every question is at regular value could take a while to get to $200, but the double boards seemed to be heavier and have more obvious answers.
I'm not sure how long it would be tenable, and I think Hollywood Squares was the last show that was ok with "we ran out of time, here's what the board looks like" but Feud is not served well by the ramp-up to where you can win the match with just round four and sudden death.
Is it a flaw to where Canadian Reaction would have words in the fifth chain worth quintuple points or a way to keep games close? Is that more or less of a flaw than on Double Talk where you can win the $10,000 end game but lose out because your opponent won the $10,000 end game and also the $500 run-a-board jackpot?
-
I'm not sure how long it would be tenable, and I think Hollywood Squares was the last show that was ok with "we ran out of time, here's what the board looks like" but Feud is not served well by the ramp-up to where you can win the match with just round four and sudden death.
The problem is in the change to the timing of the show. The format worked for a long time because they only played one board before the first commercial. By front loading the game, you render the second act completely useless. but if you went back to single/commercial/single/commercial/double-triple-sudden death, you can still have a winner in the double round, and you periodically bank content.
I'm sure what they're doing is down to a science- it just doesn't always make sense.
-
I'm not sure how long it would be tenable, and I think Hollywood Squares was the last show that was ok with "we ran out of time, here's what the board looks like" but Feud is not served well by the ramp-up to where you can win the match with just round four and sudden death.
The problem is in the change to the timing of the show. The format worked for a long time because they only played one board before the first commercial. By front loading the game, you render the second act completely useless. but if you went back to single/commercial/single/commercial/double-triple-sudden death, you can still have a winner in the double round, and you periodically bank content.
I'm sure what they're doing is down to a science- it just doesn't always make sense.
I've argued that if Harvey Feud wants two single questions in act 1, they should raise the win condition to 400 points. This would A) make the double question not pointless (no pun intended) B) not have to switch out the question so a family doesn't go over 300 in act 2 (which has always rubbed me the wrong way).
-
Adding a criteria to the flaw with Body Language is all the scoring has nothing to do with the pantomime, the core element of the show implied by the title. The tiebreaker completely dispensed of the pantomime. (But that show really needed a restructure to take advantage of its positive attributes; the bonus round, for instance, was solid.)
I'm going to add Name That Tune/'80s with the 10/10/20/1 scoring system. It is possible for a contestant to name one tune in the all the front games of the episode and advance to the Golden Medley. If one contestant runs the table in the first two rounds, they have 20 points. In Bid-a-Note, that contestant gets boxed in on the auctioneering and winds up answering 3 tunes incorrectly. Now it's tied 20-20. Our slacker contestant finally rings in with "Zorba the Greek" or whatever oft-repeated tune and sends the other contestant browsing through the "lovely prizes offstage" with the host's warm sentiment "come back again sometime." Now, it never happened quite to that level, and I get that there was a desire to keep a trailing contestant in the game even if it was a runaway.
-
I'm going to add Name That Tune/'80s with the 10/10/20/1 scoring system. It is possible for a contestant to name one tune in the all the front games of the episode and advance to the Golden Medley. If one contestant runs the table in the first two rounds, they have 20 points. In Bid-a-Note, that contestant gets boxed in on the auctioneering and winds up answering 3 tunes incorrectly. Now it's tied 20-20. Our slacker contestant finally rings in with "Zorba the Greek" or whatever oft-repeated tune and sends the other contestant browsing through the "lovely prizes offstage" with the host's warm sentiment "come back again sometime." Now, it never happened quite to that level, and I get that there was a desire to keep a trailing contestant in the game even if it was a runaway.
Which is to say, while I hated that the Golden Medley Showdown stopped the clock more often than the last two minutes of a basketball game, it made the scoring much more fair in that regard. In '84 you could have used that for Round 3, then made the bonus round the $10,000 Mystery Tune.
Also, creepy disco dancers aside, the 1978 revival is still the best NTT iteration.
-
The fact that you had to lose twice in order to achieve the top prize on $20,000 Pyramid always rubbed me the wrong way.
-
You could answer a question correctly on Your Number's Up, then lock yourself out of the next riddle because that's just the way the wheel spins. I realize the same could happen on Wheel or PYL with a Bankrupt/LAT/Whammy, but you could also voluntarily stop on those shows.
It took a good five or six years, but the current run of Feud finally fixed the one-strike Triple round from the first several seasons. You could clean up as Jeremy said, then lose it all because the other family got hot at the right time.
Also, the Spoilers element of Merv Griffin's Crosswords was a clever concept but terribly broken, as you could fill in most of the puzzle only for someone else to steal a win at the last second after doing nothing for 10 minutes. Not to mention the bonus round never had a consistent number of blanks to fill. If it's my show to do, make the bonus round its own independent crossword and ditch the Spoilers.
-
Wordplay had a very quirky scoring system, as I recall. The connecting dollar values for correct guesses, if applicable, was a different way to build one's score, but not knowing what the hidden values were before the reveal seemed like a crap shoot, especially in the later rounds. They should have had a standard money amount for each of the 3 rounds (i.e. first round values are $100, second round $200, third round $300).
If tied after the 3rd round, Tom could give a toss-up double definition and the first to buzz-in correctly wins the game, with each player keeping their winnings.
It didn't seem like the dollar values for each word were based on a word's difficulty level, either.
-
Forgot about Wordplay, and to me it has the same issue as M.G.’s Crosswords: I could miss my first two words then clean up on my last guess because that word is linked to all the other money words.
-
The fact that you had to lose twice in order to achieve the top prize on $20,000 Pyramid always rubbed me the wrong way.
Not to mention the fact that the longer you stayed, you faced a situation where you were playing to just "round up" your winnings instead of getting $20,000 ADDED to your winnings up to that point. All your bonuses and previous failed tries in effect meant you were devaluing the moment when you finally paid off.
-
Wordplay had a very quirky scoring system, as I recall. The connecting dollar values for correct guesses, if applicable, was a different way to build one's score, but not knowing what the hidden values were before the reveal seemed like a crap shoot, especially in the later rounds.
Good a time as any to link to this Wordplay thread (https://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,29146) where Chris Holland broke down a couple dozen episodes and revealed the challenger had a huge advantage in getting to pick the last word of the main game.
I hated that the Golden Medley Showdown stopped the clock more often than the last two minutes of a basketball game, it made the scoring much more fair in that regard. In '84 you could have used that for Round 3, then made the bonus round the $10,000 Mystery Tune.
Also, creepy disco dancers aside, the 1978 revival is still the best NTT iteration.
I saw what felt like far too many Golden Medley Showdowns where it's 10 to 2, but we still have another 10 tunes we can somehow play in 8 seconds. I wish they played to a goal with no countdown timer and/or declared whoever's ahead the winner after an unspoken segment time limit. But further, we already saw buzzing in to name tunes in Melody Roulette. So I'd have preferred Melody Roulette and Bid-a-Note be joined by any "both players write down titles simultaneously" game (like Sing-a-Tune) so the contestants got a chance to use different skills during the show.
-Jason
-
Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.
Body Language is what came to mind for me.
Y'know, I thought about both of these, Body Language specifically. But I argued against them if only because in both instances, it's paid practice until you get to the money that matters, which is still a very fair best 2 out of 3.
As a kid watching these were the two that immediately came to mind. As an adult watching, I recognized what Jeremy did - it was paid practice.
-
Super Password's $100 puzzle is the first thing that comes to mind.
Body Language is what came to mind for me.
Y'know, I thought about both of these, Body Language specifically. But I argued against them if only because in both instances, it's paid practice until you get to the money that matters, which is still a very fair best 2 out of 3.
As a kid watching these were the two that immediately came to mind. As an adult watching, I recognized what Jeremy did - it was paid practice.
The cynic in me says it’s a way to play the bonus round fewer times.
I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.
-
I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.
Nah, that’s no different to me than a Daily Double. You’ve got full agency over which questions you play and in which order, and there has to be a risk/reward element whether you’re leading and trying to extend, or trailing and trying to catch up. Run up, get done up.
-
DoorNumberFour's facebook post about the flawed scoring of NYSI74 got me thinking. Was that the worst scoring flaw in a game show? If not, what was?
Could you post a link or text of the post?
Re: Super Password, while the $100 is useless, as noted here it acts as a warmup for the new contestant(s). Itwas previously noted on this board that to get to the end game, the contestant has to win at least one puzzle in which they are giving the clues to the celeb.
Re:Body Language, that one is more flawed in that even though it is essentially 2 out of 3 wins, the tie breaker is the pantomimeless puzzle and is more greatly affected by who goes first since it starts with a blank slate and guessing the puzzle with only one blank filled is extremely hard (only the "Cookies" guess comes to mind with a one-clue solve). I guess it is similar to SP/P+ in that you might get the puzzle on a lucky one-clue guess, but there's still the element of having to play regular Password first.
One other thing related to Pyramid, not directly related to the scoring, is how you may play a perfect front game in the 80s version, but then are screwed out of a potential $5,000 (by winning the tiebreaker) because the other contestant misses one word. I wish it was something more like winning say one amount for getting the perfect score, and then maybe an additional bonus for winning the 21-21 tiebreaker .
-
It took a good five or six years, but the current run of Feud finally fixed the one-strike Triple round from the first several seasons. You could clean up as Jeremy said, then lose it all because the other family got hot at the right time.
I thought the one-strike triple round was marvelous and tense. It just has to be part of a race to a goal, not "that's it, most points wins".
-
In terms of game balance, having the first two questions worth a point and the third worth twenty on The Cheap Show has to set the pace.
That's the first one that came to mind for me. Two others, although one was under very limited circumstances:
First, on the second season of $100,000 Name That Tune, the final of the tournament for the first season's Golden Medley winners that didn't already win $100,000 consisted of four rounds - IIRC, Melody Roulette for 10 points, Sing-A-Tune With Kathie Lee for 10 points, Bid-A-Note for 10 points and Golden Medley Showdown for 30. If the first two rounds were split, Bid-A-Note was just time filler.
Second, on You Deserve It, the tenth clue in a round was meaningless as the prize for that round would have to be reduced to zero in order to see it. I assume it was a carryover from a different rule in what I also assume was meant to be the first episode, where the contestant had to solve the puzzle correctly in order for the next round to be worth more.
-
Could you post a link or text of the post?
Yep! Sure can.
how did no one at G-T in the 70s realize that the way scores were calculated on Now You See It (line number + position) was wickedly unfair
-
One way to rationalize it -- and I'm not saying this is what they thought, or it's even a GOOD reason -- is if you scan the board from left to right, starting in the upper left, the first thing you see is easy to find, so it's worth 2 points (line 1, position 1). But a 2-letter answer in the bottom right corner takes a lot of looking, so it's worth more.
In actual practice, your eyes dart around, so if that happened to be the intent, it didn't come across. I have a soft spot for the 1989 version.
-Jason
-
One way to rationalize it -- and I'm not saying this is what they thought, or it's even a GOOD reason -- is if you scan the board from left to right, starting in the upper left, the first thing you see is easy to find, so it's worth 2 points (line 1, position 1). But a 2-letter answer in the bottom right corner takes a lot of looking, so it's worth more.
In actual practice, your eyes dart around, so if that happened to be the intent, it didn't come across. I have a soft spot for the 1989 version.
-Jason
I totally agree with you on this.
-
The first one I ever spotted was HS86, during the first season. Each game was worth $500. If the same contestant won the first two games, the other contestant was basically screwed. They fixed this in season two with the third game being worth $1000.
-
Here's one "in reverse":
Back on ABC LMAD, there was a game where two contestants tried to guess the price of an item, and whoever was closer won money; the amounts were 100, 200, 300, and 400, and if either contestant got 700, they won a car. The problem is, if one player gets both of the first two, then the third one becomes, "It doesn't matter what the first player does, but if the first player wins, they can screw the second player out of the car."
-
How, on Beat The Clock in 1979, you could win all four stunts and lose the game with a bad slide in the bonus shuffle.
-
How, on Beat The Clock in 1979, you could win all four stunts and lose the game with a bad slide in the bonus shuffle.
I always thought the Bonus Shuffle, as weird a final game as it was, should have just added the shuffle winner's highest disc to the team's score to decide the winner. At least then, if your opponenets swept the front game, catching up would require a rare feat.
-
Regarding $1 spinoffs in the TPIR Showcase Showdown: Some here may consider it a scoring flaw while others may consider it a generous consolation prize when contestant #1 spins $.05 or $.15, then contestant #2 spins a higher amount than #1 and advances to the Showcases but doesn't win any more bonus money.
My guess is that most would consider this scenario to be the latter.
-
Years ago a now former friend posited that if you spin green and win green you should get priority over any other pocket change. I think it’s a fun irony and doubt that when the wheel was designed they imagined the budget expanding to give away extra cash like that.
-
Regarding $1 spinoffs in the TPIR Showcase Showdown: Some here may consider it a scoring flaw while others may consider it a generous consolation prize when contestant #1 spins $.05 or $.15, then contestant #2 spins a higher amount than #1 and advances to the Showcases but doesn't win any more bonus money.
My guess is that most would consider this scenario to be the latter.
It definitely makes for an awkward moment when Bob/Drew has to tell the contestant "You won! But also...you lost," but considering it's a scenario that occurs maybe once per season--if even that frequently--I'm OK with it. Having to explain that the 5/15 spaces are actually worth more for just this one spin would probably be too confusing.
-
One other thing related to Pyramid, not directly related to the scoring, is how you may play a perfect front game in the 80s version, but then are screwed out of a potential $5,000 (by winning the tiebreaker) because the other contestant misses one word. I wish it was something more like winning say one amount for getting the perfect score, and then maybe an additional bonus for winning the 21-21 tiebreaker .
Not really a scoring flaw, but I was never a fan of the $5000 bonus for a 21-21 tiebreaker - I just thought it was too much of a bonus, especially since the majority of Winner's Circle tries were for $10,000.
I think some other reward would have worked better, but if they were going to award cash, I'd be more comfortable with something like $2500. Just IMHO.
-
I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.
Nah, that’s no different to me than a Daily Double. You’ve got full agency over which questions you play and in which order, and there has to be a risk/reward element whether you’re leading and trying to extend, or trailing and trying to catch up. Run up, get done up.
I think the problem here is not ringing in and losing money on a miss. It’s going solo on a question and being forced to answer. It’s one thing to think you know and miss. It’s another when you have no clue but still lose money.
-
I think the problem here is not ringing in and losing money on a miss. It’s going solo on a question and being forced to answer. It’s one thing to think you know and miss. It’s another when you have no clue but still lose money.
Agreed. I know the picking on The Challengers is analogous to what happens on Who, What or Where, but in that game, you can more or less avoid danger by betting so low you don't even get a question. And even if you do get to answer, the amount at stake is so low, the damage is minimized. I watched another new-to-me Challengers recently, and as I've seen before, the contestants were floundering with sub-$1,000 totals late into round 2. I wish that show had found its footing faster.
-Jason
-
I think some other reward would have worked better, but if they were going to award cash, I'd be more comfortable with something like $2500. Just IMHO.
$2100. It's right there. And Bob saves another $400.
-
It was weird that a player would miss out on the bonus over their opponent's quarter-second-late response or a fleeting illegal clue. If they carried forward the bonus for 21 (not for a tie) from the New York days, they could have even split that suggested value of $2,100 and give $1,050, which coincidentally is the amount of a completed Winner's Circle before augmenting. (Dick Clark checking the math on that: "3 ... 5 ... 750 ... 8 .... 9 ... 1050.")
But now, despite that neat symmetry, I'm going to have to cut that down. Unfortunately, $1,050 and a bonus for 7-11 is a weird mismatch. Secondly, by the time they reached L.A., the celebrity players were just too good to offer the bonus for just 21.
-
Remind me again why we’re fussing about the 21-21 bonus? It is a bonus that doesn’t impact game score, and nobody is going to boot an answer just to screw their opponent out of a chance at the $5K, since doing so means they would *lose the game.* It’s a prize awarded to the winner of a tiebreaker ending a perfect game.
(And while we’re at it what was the scoring flaw in NYSI74 that started this whole thing?)
-
(And while we’re at it what was the scoring flaw in NYSI74 that started this whole thing?)
This post. (https://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,35839.msg414208.html#msg414208)
-Jason
-
Remind me again why we’re fussing about the 21-21 bonus? It is a bonus that doesn’t impact game score, and nobody is going to boot an answer just to screw their opponent out of a chance at the $5K, since doing so means they would *lose the game.* It’s a prize awarded to the winner of a tiebreaker ending a perfect game.
I think it just seemed like a lot to give away for a tiebreaker, given 1) how cheap Stewart was and 2) several shows still offered that as a bonus round prize in the mid-80s. I agree with the others that $2,100 would've been a more suitable fit.
-
I think it just seemed like a lot to give away for a tiebreaker, given 1) how cheap Stewart was and 2) several shows still offered that as a bonus round prize in the mid-80s. I agree with the others that $2,100 would've been a more suitable fit.
I think it was 1984 when Pyramid instituted a car bonus for the tie-breaker win as a means to push teams to get to 21 as the players improved.
I was ok with the $5,000 because it's a bonus and not guaranteed, and it amps up the tension for the tiebreaker. There was also the possibility of someone winning ten grand the hard way.
I don't think it's cheap to fold in the ten thousand if someone summits the phyramid twice in a show especially since that $25k was the send-off point for a long time. Also: once $100k Pyramid took off and the syndication money rolled in (plus Jackpot and Canadian Reaction) I think StewartB had to feel like he was ok and could loosen the purse strings a bit. (Still doesn't explain or defend Repeat Discussion and their stupid main game bonus.
It isn't a flaw if you don't bag the cash in a 21-20 win. You get to play one of the three greatest end games in all of game show-dom and don't have to sweat through what can sort of be a random event in breaking the tie. Given how wiped I've felt after playing just the main game for $no dollars, I think I'd sacrifice the bonus cash for a pass to get to the winners circle.
-
The first one I ever spotted was HS86, during the first season. Each game was worth $500. If the same contestant won the first two games, the other contestant was basically screwed. They fixed this in season two with the third game being worth $1000.
On Bergeron's, the $4000 game is preposterous. Play for $2,000 just to get the loser some money. It's the Squares, not tense competition.
-
On Bergeron's, the $4000 game is preposterous. Play for $2,000 just to get the loser some money. It's the Squares, not tense competition.
There was someone in the first year who rolled up fourteen grand, which seems overkill. At some point it becomes Homer pummeling the Krusty Burglar.
I think if you can swing it play a practice game for a grand then the rest at $2,000 each, plus the $500/square. That would work for Card Sharks too, and you do t have to worry about extra cash. Sound a sounder and that’s the final question. It’s not hard.
-
I don't think it's cheap to fold in the ten thousand if someone summits the phyramid twice in a show especially since that $25k was the send-off point for a long time. Also: once $100k Pyramid took off and the syndication money rolled in (plus Jackpot and Canadian Reaction) I think StewartB had to feel like he was ok and could loosen the purse strings a bit.
Or was it Michael Brockman and CBS who told him to loosen up? That version also had a significantly better set than Stewart's other shows. (Maybe the original Jackpot was close.)
Winners on the CBS $25K version did really well--with good Mystery 7 prizes, too--but augmenting winnings to $25K if you'd won the 10 always rubbed me wrong--if you already have 10, you're not playing for 25, you're playing for 15. ABC's $20K was even worse.
-
Also, creepy disco dancers aside, the 1978 revival is still the best NTT iteration.
...joined by any "both players write down titles simultaneously" game (like Sing-a-Tune) so the contestants got a chance to use different skills during the show.
I liked the version with the $100,000 Mystery Tune way better. Well orchestrated, suspenseful, and it was all season long.
Everyone may disagree, but I've always been bugged that in Melody Roulette, the wheel didn't affect the score. I'd rather they tallied the money at the end as the score so the wheel means something for the game than best of five tunes with a shiny object. I liked Money Trees, too, even if it was tacky.
Writing the answers in Sing-a-Tune was awkward. Art Fleming showed you what his players wrote, but with Tom, you're taking his word for it. Maybe they could have built a wall a la Dotto, where we could see what they're writing without them seeing each other.
-
Maybe they could have built a wall a la Dotto, where we could see what they're writing without them seeing each other.
Or done it Second Chance style and had them place their pads in a slot in front of them, but still out of view of their opponent.
-
While not so much a scoring flaw, Card Sharks 2001, one player could call all the cards correctly and make one miscall on the final card and the other player won by default. Horrible!
Top Card's end game was anti-climactic if a player could not get to 21. It always rubbed me wrong that the Ace was only worth 1 on that show. Also rubbed me wrong that a player could get a question correct in the end game and for a Joker to turn up, thereby causing the player to lose. Seemed downright sinister for a player to get a question correct in an end game only to lose!
Much as I preferred Password Plus over Super Password, SP got the end game right. The "reducing the jackpot by 20% with an illegal clue" thing always seemed awkward to me on Password Plus.
Also on Price is Right, the pricing game Money Game...a player can play it perfectly and win an automobile, but a player who makes 3 mistakes can still win the car PLUS extra money??? Should be one or the other, not both. Seems wrong to reward more to a player who makes more mistakes in a game.
-
Also on Price is Right, the pricing game Money Game...a player can play it perfectly and win an automobile, but a player who makes 3 mistakes can still win the car PLUS extra money??? Should be one or the other, not both. Seems wrong to reward more to a player who makes more mistakes in a game.
I understand your sentiment and agree in context of today's world. There's an underlying strategy that you're missing, which had significance in the era the game was created.
-
While not so much a scoring flaw, Card Sharks 2001, one player could call all the cards correctly and make one miscall on the final card and the other player won by default. Horrible!
This reminded me of an episode of Hit Man I watched a while ago on YouTube. One of the challengers did not answer a single question correctly and still went on to the Triple Crown round.
-
Also on Price is Right, the pricing game Money Game...a player can play it perfectly and win an automobile, but a player who makes 3 mistakes can still win the car PLUS extra money??? Should be one or the other, not both. Seems wrong to reward more to a player who makes more mistakes in a game.
I understand your sentiment and agree in context of today's world. There's an underlying strategy that you're missing, which had significance in the era the game was created.
I must be missing it too then--is the "strategy" to intentionally make wrong guesses if you already know the price?
-
Also on Price is Right, the pricing game Money Game...a player can play it perfectly and win an automobile, but a player who makes 3 mistakes can still win the car PLUS extra money??? Should be one or the other, not both. Seems wrong to reward more to a player who makes more mistakes in a game.
Yeah, I feel like if you know the game and know the price of the car, a smart person can be rewarded by whiffing on three guesses and picking the highest amounts possible and then filling in the car. Of course, knowing the last two digits of a car’s price is difficult, but there was a period of time when they used stock cars with stock options. So, as long as they didn’t pull out a random luxury car, you’d have a good shot of memorizing it. Even today, they have many cars they like to use often while changing out trims and options, so if you remember the trim you’d probably have a good shot of knowing the first two digits.
I also don’t see the extra couple hundred bucks (while not nothing) as significant enough to feel slighted over anymore. Back when a couple hundred bucks could buy 15-20 tanks of gas compared to 3-4 now, maybe.
-
I also don’t see the extra couple hundred bucks (while not nothing) as significant enough to feel slighted over anymore. Back when a couple hundred bucks could buy 15-20 tanks of gas compared to 3-4 now, maybe.
Admittedly in the old days the consolation cash might be as much again as the value of the one-bid, and it is certainly nice to have that and not come off as a loser, but it's sort of like looking at the ten bucks if you get one right in Grand Game and say "It's not a loss! The player won something!"
There was a time when the show was in their last set redesign before Bob's last season and they repeatedly had a base level Ford Ranger that I think was $12,995--something that ended in 995 anyway. If that's the car I happen to be playing for I am plugging 95 in the back half and mowing down the front half numbers to win the car and not worrying about a check for $187.
-
While not so much a scoring flaw, Card Sharks 2001, one player could call all the cards correctly and make one miscall on the final card and the other player won by default. Horrible!
This reminded me of an episode of Hit Man I watched a while ago on YouTube. One of the challengers did not answer a single question correctly and still went on to the Triple Crown round.
Speaking of Uncle Jay, the scoring methods in Rodeo Drive were off the rails as well.
From the Round 1 "Talk About" segment, even though the point values were supposedly in relation to the difficulty of each word, the word was chosen blindly by the contestant so the point values were a crap shoot. Should've been a consistent point value for all words, and give the other 2 Yes/No players a chance to bet from a 100 -point starting amount. (I.e. I will bet 50 of my 100 points that Joe will say that random word).
In Round 2, each Truth or Rumor question was worth 100 points each, which is fine and dandy. However each contestant's turn allowed them to rack up a streak of 100 points per correct answer until they got one wrong. Unless you knew a lot about celebs, it was pretty much a coin toss guess on most questions as alot of the questions were little known facts or believable lies. A much better scenario was to give each player one question a piece, keeping the game closer and avoid having dumb-luck runaway games.
-
I'm a bit surprised nobody's mentioned Go. "At the end of round two, Bonnie Urseth's team has 250 points, and Charlie Siebert's team has 500 points. Our goal is 1,500 points, so now we'll play a 750-point round that won't matter one bit when we play the final round for 1,250 points."
OK, maybe not the worst, but why play a round that is, at that point, clearly going to have no impact on the outcome of the game? I suppose Family Feud was and is guilty enough of this with the first round in its various scoring formats, but at least it's disguised a little better when the dollar/point totals per round can vary based on performance.
It was a short-enough runner that I wonder if anybody knows just how many times on Go they ended up in the useless-third-round situation in the course of 79 episodes.
-
Also flawed is the Eubanks Dream House series scoring of playing to a fixed number of questions: where you can guarantee a win by not challenging or where you must challenge to stay in the game (but some teams still didn't do this). I think Richard Reid was in the "viewers won't notice the scoring flaw if the host doesn't draw attention to it" camp.
-
The 750 point round isn’t useless if you win it and the game as it becomes another $187 for each teammate.
Also if you’re on Rodeo Drive and don’t know celebrity gossip you dood it wrong.
-
The 750 point round isn’t useless if you win it and the game as it becomes another $187 for each teammate.
Plus winning the 750 round gets you two shots at the bonus if your team won the 250 and 500 rounds. It could conceivably be worth an extra $2687 per civilian player.
-
The 750 point round isn’t useless if you win it and the game as it becomes another $187 for each teammate.
Plus winning the 750 round gets you two shots at the bonus if your team won the 250 and 500 rounds. It could conceivably be worth an extra $2687 per civilian player.
Yes, but we're specifically talking about the situation where the teams have split the 250 and 500 rounds.
-
Regarding Money Game and being rewarded with less for making better car pricing guesses, the same goes for Pathfinder and the notion that you can't win the 3 SPs unless you need to earn additional chances. However, unless you're 100% certain of the prices of any SPs, there's no incentive to deliberately step to the wrong numbers in the price of the car.
That said, I've always thought that the contestants should be given the opportunity to price all 3 SPs upfront and receive insurance markers in case they do step to any of the wrong numbers.
-
Also on Price is Right, the pricing game Money Game...a player can play it perfectly and win an automobile, but a player who makes 3 mistakes can still win the car PLUS extra money??? Should be one or the other, not both. Seems wrong to reward more to a player who makes more mistakes in a game.
I understand your sentiment and agree in context of today's world. There's an underlying strategy that you're missing, which had significance in the era the game was created.
I must be missing it too then--is the "strategy" to intentionally make wrong guesses if you already know the price?
Yeah, I feel like if you know the game and know the price of the car, a smart person can be rewarded by whiffing on three guesses and picking the highest amounts possible and then filling in the car. Of course, knowing the last two digits of a car’s price is difficult, but there was a period of time when they used stock cars with stock options. So, as long as they didn’t pull out a random luxury car, you’d have a good shot of memorizing it. Even today, they have many cars they like to use often while changing out trims and options, so if you remember the trim you’d probably have a good shot of knowing the first two digits.
I also don’t see the extra couple hundred bucks (while not nothing) as significant enough to feel slighted over anymore. Back when a couple hundred bucks could buy 15-20 tanks of gas compared to 3-4 now, maybe.
This. The strategy carries the risk of - maybe you know the price of the car...and maybe you don't. How confident and brave are you? The side money lost its context with inflation. In a context where the stakes are the equivalent of 1/10th the value of the car (1972), it carries a different meaning than one where it's 1/1000th (today).
-
Does that mean the name of the game, Money Game, is itself flawed? If I wasn't a LFaT and, even if a contestant I knew already mentioned winning a car playing Money Game, my inclination would be to ask how money they won in addition to the car and I'd be a little baffled if they told me they only won the car.
Before the PG names appeared on the props, didn't Bob often call it "the old front & back game"? (I do realize in later years he mentioned the old front & back trick with the way the numbers were placed on the board.)
-
The 750 point round isn’t useless if you win it and the game as it becomes another $187 for each teammate.
Plus winning the 750 round gets you two shots at the bonus if your team won the 250 and 500 rounds. It could conceivably be worth an extra $2687 per civilian player.
Yes, but we're specifically talking about the situation where the teams have split the 250 and 500 rounds.
The winning team got their score converted to money (so, a team who won with a score of 1500 won $1500), so that at least somewhat justified the "pointless" 750 round.
Anthony
-
I've got another- Play the Percentages. I thought that getting a percentage on the nose was definitely worthy of a prize or a jackpot, but winning the game outright? At least make them answer the follow up question.
-
I've got another- Play the Percentages. I thought that getting a percentage on the nose was definitely worthy of a prize or a jackpot, but winning the game outright? At least make them answer the follow up question.
Cosigned. Using the same device, Card Sharks made the contestants play the cards before declaring them winner.
-
Wordplay had a very quirky scoring system, as I recall.
I didn't like Wordplay's scoring either. It gave the advantage to the player who played second, fourth, and sixth. Simple solution: the player with the higher score plays in the third and fifth rounds.
-
didn't Bob often call it "the old front & back game"?
Rest assured that's not the only thing Bob called "the old front & back game."
-
I don't believe anyone mentioned High Rollers. On the original version, the players' fate was in the hands of Ruta Lee rolling the dice. I always thought the players should roll the dice themselves, at least in the "Big Numbers" round. This was rectified in the '78 version when the show returned without Ruta.
-
What does that have to do with scoring?
-
Depending on the dice, that affects a player's score.
-
Depending on the dice, that affects a player's score.
Unsurprisingly, you completely fail to understand the assignment, unless you're being willfully ignorant.
Family Secrets came immediately to my mind. The $500-to-one-side-or-the-other third-round question either a) made the first and second rounds completely superfluous or b) was pointless on its own because the game was a lock.
-
I don't believe anyone mentioned High Rollers. On the original version, the players' fate was in the hands of Ruta Lee rolling the dice.
Players still had the option to pass.
-
Pyramid in Italy had this wonderful rule: at the end of a round, if the score difference was 4 or more, score resets to 0-0. ???
-
Pyramid in Italy had this wonderful rule: at the end of a round, if the score difference was 4 or more, score resets to 0-0. ???
So did the situation ever come up where a player with a four point lead sat there for seventeen or twenty seconds in silence?
-
Pyramid in Italy had this wonderful rule: at the end of a round, if the score difference was 4 or more, score resets to 0-0. ???
I want to make sure I’m reading correctly. Each player player picks a category. The score is 7-3. The score are reset.
Did the better performing player receive any form of remuneration?
-
Pyramid in Italy had this wonderful rule: at the end of a round, if the score difference was 4 or more, score resets to 0-0. ???
I want to make sure I’m reading correctly. Each player player picks a category. The score is 7-3. The score are reset.
Did the better performing player receive any form of remuneration?
A big fat 0
-
Pyramid in Italy had this wonderful rule: at the end of a round, if the score difference was 4 or more, score resets to 0-0. ???
I want to make sure I’m reading correctly. Each player player picks a category. The score is 7-3. The score are reset.
Did the better performing player receive any form of remuneration?
The better performing player received a 20% chance to go home.
(2007) Pyramid in Italy had a weird set of rules:
- Two teams of two unacquainted civilians
- The contestant pool has 20 people. They occupy a section of the audience
- After each round (when both teams had a turn), if the score difference is 4 or more, every player must pick a ball from a box. IIRC the leading team's box has 1 black and 4 white balls, the trailing team's box has 3 black and 2 white balls. Who gets a black ball is out of the game and is replaced by someone chosen at random from the pool. If it's not the third round, scores reset to zero.
- At the end of the third round, if the previous rule did not trigger, players of the losing team must pick a ball from the 3/2 box (white ball means the player stays on for the next episode)
Yes, it happened that a person from the contestants pool advanced directly to the bonus round by virtue of a winner getting blackballed :o
-
Yes, it happened that a person from the contestants pool advanced directly to the bonus round by virtue of a winner getting blackballed :o
Geez, even Merv Griffin's spoilers had to at least get one answer right.