The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TLEberle on August 05, 2004, 09:17:45 PM
-
In looking over the "ways to fix Balderdash" thread by one Chris Lemon, I'm reminded of a conversation that we had, and how it relates to game shows.
At the time, I was tweaking a dice game that I had created. Without going into too much detail, the goal was to reach 5,000 points, and points are scored in 25p steps. I asked him whether to keep the point structure as is, or to divide everything by 25, but everything else the same. (I went for the division).
I'm curious how shows decide what point structure to use. Lingo could work just as well with words scoring one, and Lingos two. Nothing changes. Shop Til You Drop could have divided everything by 50, and the game is still the same. As a note, one of the only shows to go by single points was "Funny Money."
Is there some psychology involved, and people just like seeing "big numbers"? Is it left up to the whimsy of the production compnay, or is that something determined during focus groups/runthroughs?
-
People like seeing big numbers; they also like seeing round numbers. Without knowing anything about your format, the first thing I do is change your scoring to 10p or probably 100p steps, not 25 and definitely not single points. It doesn't change your game one bit, but it does make your game more attractive to the audience. Yes, it's stupid, but it's true.
One reason: There's a natural tendency for a game show watcher to automatically equate points with dollars, whether they actually are or not. If your point system is small, it looks cheap.
-
Ditto. When I put a game together with a point system, generally if it's based on a tv game or vegas/gambling game theme, I'll stick with higher numbers. Simple word or dice games, it depends on whether you want to have people playing your game enjoy it by putting them into a comfort zone based on games they already know (like Scrabble and Upwords), or you may want to go for an outrageous score system to make it come off as new and fresh. But it is all psychological. Big score, big win!
If I remember correctly, wasn't the ABC summer run of Super Jeopardy years ago played for points? That was a bummer, especially when it's normally a cash game.
-
Some formats lend themselves to point scoring, others to dollar scoring. On Match Game '7x the points correlated to the number of celebrities matched. On original Password the points correlated to the inverse of the number of clues given. On Jeopardy! and Family Feud the question/answer values and scores translate well to dollars.
One nuance is that with point scoring you're not committed to awarding dollars to the losing player(s) -- they simply lose the game with X points. Suppose on your dice game the contestant falls short of the goal of 5,000 "somethings" and loses the game. If you score in dollars, are you obligated to award the money? Or do you not award the money, in which case the contestant never really had the stated number of dollars, making you look cheap (the current Jeopardy! problem)?
On P+ we scored in dollars and the losing contestant took home the dollar amount won.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 07:47 PM\'] On P+ we scored in dollars and the losing contestant took home the dollar amount won. [/quote]
I'm a big fan of scoring systems like this. The question I ask myself when I'm noodling around with formats in my head is: How much do I want my champions to win for winning the game, while at the same time providing a decent consolation price for the losers?
I tend to arrive at numbers like these: A winner tends to win somewhere between 1200-1500, or between 1500-2000 in a game involving teams or couples. So I adapt my scoring system to acheive that outcome. Sure, sometimes you're gonna have a low scoring game, and sometimes you're gonna break the bank, but on the average it works out.
-
I'm a big fan of scoring systems like this. The question I ask myself when I'm noodling around with formats in my head is: How much do I want my champions to win for winning the game, while at the same time providing a decent consolation price for the losers?
It depends on the structure of your game. If a match is a shutout (500 points to nothing, for example) your contestants aren't going to have anything for a consolation prize.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:34 PM\'] It depends on the structure of your game. If a match is a shutout (500 points to nothing, for example) your contestants aren't going to have anything for a consolation prize. [/quote]
True! That, my friend, is what Rice-A-Roni and Turtle Wax is for! :)
-
[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 09:15 PM\'] If I remember correctly, wasn't the ABC summer run of Super Jeopardy years ago played for points? [/quote]
Indeed it was. And Double Jeopardy! was played for double and a half what the point values were for the first round.
-
A winner tends to win somewhere between 1200-1500, or between 1500-2000 in a game involving teams or couples. So I adapt my scoring system to acheive that outcome.
Part of the problem with some scoring systems is that they just don't work. I know this has been brought up before, but on "Go", for example, the rounds went 250-500-750-1250. In order to fit the game into a half hour, they couldn't play five rounds, but I'm just not comfortable with those kind of scoring systems.
Also, on "Super Password", the $100 puzzle was meaningless - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all. It might sound silly, but if I was rooting for a particular contestant, I was always hoping they'd MISS the $100 puzzle!
-
This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. People then say the preceding elements are meaningless if the game hinges on the last element. This is true but if you eliminate the prelude every game is basically sudden death.
Using Jeopardy! as an example, Final Jeopardy! exists so that players can come from behind and win. This gives the game a climactic finish. If you ended the game after Double Jeopardy!, the ending would be anticlimactic. The problem with Final Jeopardy! is, if one player is more than 2x ahead of his nearest opponent going, it is merely an exercise in going through the motions. It's one of those conundrums you just have to live with.
The most important element of a traditional game show is "playalong", but the dramatic elements of suspense, irony and climax are very important secondary elements. Your objective is to keep an audience entertained, first and foremost.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 02:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. [/quote]
Which is a big reason why I liked The Final Showdown stage of The Big Showdown.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 12:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. [/quote]
True, but I think the better shows do it in such a way that, going into that final act of the game, the amount of the achievement necessary to come from behind is proportional to the amount of the lead they need to make up.
Herein we have a difference between a show like "Go!" and other shows. On Go, it could be 250 to 1250 going into that last round, or it could be tied at 750 a throw, it didn't matter, the same achievement won the game for either team. Building up the lead didn't mean jack.
Now we have the Countdown Round on "Split Second". Appropriately, the player in the lead is rewarded by being assigned the lowest number of correct answers to win. But it doesn't matter if their lead was $50 or $500, they still only get a one-question advantage over the next closest player. Better, but not perfect.
Now, consider "Joker's Wild". If you're looking at your final spin and it's $450 to $500, you're breathing pretty easy, because you know you will at LEAST have a chance to tie, and you have a reasonable chance of catching a Joker or a pair and winning the game outright. BUT, if it's $50 to $500, well, now you're praying for three Jokers, or some combination that will let you pick Fast Forward Asian Yachtsmen Of Renoun and reel off a bunch of right answers. MUCH harder to pull off, but we've seen it done.
THAT'S what I like to see. I don't mind the game engineered to go down to the wire, but make someone who has performed poorly to that point pull off something truly great to win.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
[/quote]
This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000.
-
Herein we have a difference between a show like "Go!" and other shows. On Go, it could be 250 to 1250 going into that last round, or it could be tied at 750 a throw, it didn't matter, the same achievement won the game for either team. Building up the lead didn't mean jack.
It wasn't perfect but it gave the game the potential for a come-from-behind win. The same thing exists in the Double/Triple round of FF. The game play is the same for the final question.
In the big picture this is all secondary to the consideration of whether the audience is entertained.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 08:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. People then say the preceding elements are meaningless if the game hinges on the last element. This is true but if you eliminate the prelude every game is basically sudden death. [/quote]
Excellent and fundamental point, one which should be borne in mind by every person who fancies themselves a game show designer. (Incidentally, amateurs, I wouldn't take the criticism from this board too seriously; if any of Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right hadn't happened and someone here were to propose one of them, I'm sure we would heartily shoot them down. It's just as if someone were to invent chess for the first time today...)
Another approach is to deliberately do something more interesting than having straightforward count-up-most-wins points. You could have a game board where it's more important to have particular points, or particular combinations of points, rather than raw totals of points (eg Hollywood Squares), where points are not directly related to gameplay (eg the voting elements of Weakest Link), where it is not necessary to have the most points to continue play (eg the Malcolm Rule on the much-maligned Malcolm pilot), where points are converted into some other medium for the final round (eg American Gladiators, The Crystal Maze, the final British series of The Krypton Factor), straightforward 1-0 scoring with some sufficiently interesting scoring mechanism (Interceptor, Knightmare, though these are both player-house), tons and tons of other things.
I list those shows not to limit you to the things that you can do - indeed, if there is going to be a startling new show which lasts multiple years, it will likely come out of a new paradigm for scoring which happens to be genuinely interesting to watch. Indeed, I would say that "what could we do that's more interesting than most points wins?" is at least as good a starting-point for would-be game designers as any. Then forget Prof. Steev's pitch session and try to sell your interesting new idea in the UK where interesting new ideas are occasionally appreciated :-)
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 01:18 PM\']
Part of the problem with some scoring systems is that they just don't work. I know this has been brought up before, but on "Go", for example, the rounds went 250-500-750-1250. In order to fit the game into a half hour, they couldn't play five rounds, but I'm just not comfortable with those kind of scoring systems.
Also, on "Super Password", the $100 puzzle was meaningless - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all. It might sound silly, but if I was rooting for a particular contestant, I was always hoping they'd MISS the $100 puzzle! [/quote]
The first two $100 puzzles on Body Language also had no bearing on the outcome of the game.
-
On MG, matching Patti D. probably should have been worth two points.
-
Shows that have a first-to-reach-the-goal set-up tend to avoid the problem of anything being meaningless. (Body Language, Super Password and Go suffered from a poor choice of score values, but they basically achieved this.) The best examples in point-goals are Split Second and Family Feud. The definitive example is Blockbusters, where a game could take a long time if players didn't get the questions right, but a tie was impossible.
As to the question of points vs. dollars, I figure that the biggest advantage of points is that they never have to be adjusted for inflation. (I've been trying to come up with an inflation-proof prize structure. One idea that I had was to award quantities of gold.)
-
Point goals only work when both sides have an equal opportunity to play (Family Feud). They generally don't work when two or more players take turns playing. If play alternated between A and B and there were a point goal, A could surpass the point goal BUT WAIT! He hasn't won the game yet because we have to play one more question with B to give him an equal shot. The closest thing to this I can think of that was seen on the air is Match Game, where one player could match all six (five) panelists and the remaining question(s) were played with B who had to achieve a tie. On MG there was not a point goal but a point limit.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:50 AM\'] Point goals only work when both sides have an equal opportunity to play (Family Feud). They generally don't work when two or more players take turns playing. If play alternated between A and B and there were a point goal, A could surpass the point goal BUT WAIT! He hasn't won the game yet because we have to play one more question with B to give him an equal shot. The closest thing to this I can think of that was seen on the air is Match Game, where one player could match all six (five) panelists and the remaining question(s) were played with B who had to achieve a tie. On MG there was not a point goal but a point limit. [/quote]
Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also?
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 06:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal. I'm trying to think of another show where this situation occurred, and I'm coming up blank. I'm sure one exists, tho.
(MG, as Chris said, is a different beast with a point limit, and Pyramid had a similar issue, but was organized so as to provide a down-to-the-wire finish as often as possible)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 10:39 AM\'][quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 06:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal. I'm trying to think of another show where this situation occurred, and I'm coming up blank. I'm sure one exists, tho.[/quote]
Initially on "TJW," the champ was in the first slot, meaning that if s/he pulled three Jokers on the first spin and answered the question correctly, the new player had to be brought back on another date to get a chance to play (with another champion). (When the champ was moved to the second slot, the rule was obviously dropped, since the champ had already gotten a chance to play, thank you very much.) Still, though, the second player always got last licks if the first player got to the $500 goal on their proper turn.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 09:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twenty One also plays by that rule.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 12:25 PM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 09:59 AM\'] Didn't they do that on The Joker's Wild, also? [/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Twenty One also plays by that rule. [/quote]
But 21 also has a limit, not a goal, and it's a game of perfect knowledge, so it's not really "giving the player last licks" so much as "finishing out the round to determine the result."
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
[/quote]
This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000. [/quote]
This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 04:29 PM\'] This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible. [/quote]
The most exciting part of WoF to me is watching it to see how fast I can solve the puzzles (I've gotten a few with no letters over the course of the years I've been watching the show). I couldn't give two squats who wins or how much they win by.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 9 2004, 03:29 PM\'][quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 04:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
[/quote]
This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000. [/quote]
This brings up the weird thing about "Wheel"--there is almost no suspense whatsoever in seeing who will win. There's possible tension, say, when a player who's behind has control of the wheel and could keep spinning even after they know the answer, risking a bankrupt to go for the daily win. But such a gamble is glossed over if not outright discouraged. It's as if the game is engineered to make it as unexciting as possible.[/quote]
It's almost like they place all of the drama on the end game. Seems to be a holdover from the sensibilities of Lin Bolen, who supposedly placed more of an emphasis on some sort of end game, assuming that the housewife audience was busy doing other things and needed to be notified that something big was about to happen. (Of course, with "Wheel"'s original format the shopping was considered the equivalent of the end game, since they otherwise didn't have one. I know.)
-
I think the WOF end game came in during the reign of Jake Tauber.
-
Yes, the player who went second (who I think was the champion, seeing as the Hal In The Loud Suit clip was this precise situation) always got last licks in the event that the first player made the $500 goal.
And, going back to earlier in this thread, Jack came perilously close to screwing up on Hal's final spin...when a category appeared in the first window, he began going into the whole "we have a new champion" spiel, but FF Spelling popped up in the 2nd window, prompting Hal to wave his hands and say "Wait, wait, wait!"
Sadly, while Hal came close to making a comeback on that spin, he blew it on the answer which would've put him at $450 (he was playing FFS for $50) by misspelling "Schenectady", eerily reminiscent of how TTD's 2nd all-time top winner Kit Salisbury lost.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 11 2004, 09:15 PM\'] he began going into the whole "we have a new champion" spiel, but FF Spelling popped up in the 2nd window, prompting Hal to wave his hands and say "Wait, wait, wait!"
[/quote]
It's always nice when the players are more familiar with the rules than the host.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 05:51 AM\'] It's always nice when the players are more familiar with the rules than the host. [/quote]
"John, don't I have to earn that X myself?"
"Oh, yeah!"
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 06:53 PM\'] [quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 01:18 PM\']
Part of the problem with some scoring systems is that they just don't work. I know this has been brought up before, but on "Go", for example, the rounds went 250-500-750-1250. In order to fit the game into a half hour, they couldn't play five rounds, but I'm just not comfortable with those kind of scoring systems.
Also, on "Super Password", the $100 puzzle was meaningless - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all. It might sound silly, but if I was rooting for a particular contestant, I was always hoping they'd MISS the $100 puzzle! [/quote]
The first two $100 puzzles on Body Language also had no bearing on the outcome of the game. [/quote]
The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars, not that I want to keep giving away cash and prizes though.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 09:34 AM\'] The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars, not that I want to keep giving away cash and prizes though. [/quote]
I don't follow. You're saying you prefer a scoring system that renders entire portions of the game irrelevant over the "can't put an X there, you have to earn that yourself" rule, and feeding celebs bluffs (even though it has no impact on the outcome of the game) on HSq, and the "must capture a triangle with a right answer" rule on Battlestars?
I just want to give you a chance to clarify if I'm wrong, before I dismiss you as being COMPLETELY high....
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:34 AM\'] The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars, not that I want to keep giving away cash and prizes though. [/quote]
What exactly do you plan to give away, then? A trip to the Battan death march?
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:56 AM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:34 AM\'] The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars, not that I want to keep giving away cash and prizes though. [/quote]
What exactly do you plan to give away, then? A trip to the Battan death march? [/quote]
No, but I should mention that on H2 and Battlestars maybe a maximum of two times that you should not be alloweed to win by default per match.
-
Maybe I'm missing something here.......(wouldn't be the first time).....but how did the "GO" scoring system get in this thread? In that game, all rounds mattered in some form of fashion. BL and SP were kind of flawed for the reasons already stated.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 01:22 PM\'] [quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:56 AM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:34 AM\'] The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars, not that I want to keep giving away cash and prizes though. [/quote]
What exactly do you plan to give away, then? A trip to the Battan death march? [/quote]
No, but I should mention that on H2 and Battlestars maybe a maximum of two times that you should not be alloweed to win by default per match. [/quote]
Yeah, that's really what you want to do -- make the viewers wonder, "why did he get the victory for doing that this time when he didn't three minutes ago?"
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:17 AM\'] Maybe I'm missing something here.......(wouldn't be the first time).....but how did the "GO" scoring system get in this thread? In that game, all rounds mattered in some form of fashion. [/quote]
Not hardly. If the two teams split the first two rounds, the 750-point round was completely moot, the game was gonna be won by whoever took the 1250-point round.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:22 AM\'] No, but I should mention that on H2 and Battlestars maybe a maximum of two times that you should not be alloweed to win by default per match. [/quote]
That is an utterly horrible idea, and Steve nailed it on the head as to why.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 02:35 PM\'] [quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:17 AM\'] Maybe I'm missing something here.......(wouldn't be the first time).....but how did the "GO" scoring system get in this thread? In that game, all rounds mattered in some form of fashion. [/quote]
Not hardly. If the two teams split the first two rounds, the 750-point round was completely moot, the game was gonna be won by whoever took the 1250-point round. [/quote]
Well, you're correct in that regard but reconsider.......
remember that the four rounds were 250, 500, 750, 1250......game at 1500.
the first three added up to 1500, thereby making the Double Jackpot round possible. Otherwise, your statement is indeed correct. If there was a split somewhere, then yes it would not matter. Most games went four rounds anyway.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 02:37 PM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:22 AM\'] No, but I should mention that on H2 and Battlestars maybe a maximum of two times that you should not be alloweed to win by default per match. [/quote]
That is an utterly horrible idea, and Steve nailed it on the head as to why. [/quote]
On the first episode of MG-HS, there were only 11 questions asked on HS. That is why I think there should be a maximum of two no-win-by-defaults and the point as I said in an earlier post is faster gameplay, also bluffs DO NOT make me laugh 99.99% of the time. I have gotten more laughs from Jon Bauman on MG-HS.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 06:31 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 02:37 PM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:22 AM\'] No, but I should mention that on H2 and Battlestars maybe a maximum of two times that you should not be alloweed to win by default per match. [/quote]
That is an utterly horrible idea, and Steve nailed it on the head as to why. [/quote]
On the first episode of MG-HS, there were only 11 questions asked on HS. That is why I think there should be a maximum of two no-win-by-defaults and the point as I said in an earlier post is faster gameplay, also bluffs DO NOT make me laugh 99.99% of the time. I have gotten more laughs from Jon Bauman on MG-HS. [/quote]
A response that does absolutely nothing to counter our point that your proposal would confuse people.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 01:34 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 02:35 PM\'] [quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 11:17 AM\'] Maybe I'm missing something here.......(wouldn't be the first time).....but how did the "GO" scoring system get in this thread? In that game, all rounds mattered in some form of fashion. [/quote]
Not hardly. If the two teams split the first two rounds, the 750-point round was completely moot, the game was gonna be won by whoever took the 1250-point round. [/quote]
Well, you're correct in that regard but reconsider.......
remember that the four rounds were 250, 500, 750, 1250......game at 1500.
the first three added up to 1500, thereby making the Double Jackpot round possible. Otherwise, your statement is indeed correct. If there was a split somewhere, then yes it would not matter. Most games went four rounds anyway. [/quote]
There is no "otherwise". My statement remains entirely correct.
It's no knock on Go, Go still remains one of my absolute favorite shows. My point is that the scoring system allowed for a not at all uncommon occurance that made a round irrelevant, and that your claim that "all rounds mattered in some form or fashion" was often false.
-
It's the difference between a round or rounds always having no impact on a win (Body Language, Super Password) and a round often becoming meaningless during the game (Go, Family Feud a la Anderson). At least on Wheel of Fortune, as Pat never fails to point out, "there's still money to be made." Although I suppose that's technically true for BL and SP as well--bah, humbug.
Now, back to my crusade against progressive jackpots . . .
-
I may have missed it somewhere, but it's important not to be distracted: The OP concerns points versus money. You can have meaningless rounds regardless of which way you play. About the only advantage to a monetary score is that rounds that would otherwise be meaningless can at least have some importance. Case in point: Rock & Roll Jeopardy. In its first season, score was kept in points, and the winner got $5,000 regardless of score. Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. In the second season, the producers apparently saw the problem this created and had them play for dollars, as on the regular show.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\'] Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. [/quote]
I don't follow:
If the scores were...
1400-4200-3500, a 0 wager by the leader would be meaningless if the 2nd place player risked $701 or more.
If the scores were...
2000-17500-1000-Sure, it'd be meaningless, but it'd be just like the real show...so I don't see how its a problem.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 13 2004, 12:25 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\'] Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. [/quote]
I don't follow:
[/quote]
it's not hard. Point is (heh), if you're playing R&RJ! for points then if the leader has a lock on the game, it doesn't matter if he wagers 1 point or 10,000, he's still going home with five large, whereas if they are playing for the cash in front of them (to borrow a much beloved term from $otC), a player who has the victory locked could still make it an even bigger payday with a big bet, which adds SOME interest to the wager, even if the game isn't in question.
Consider how many times Ken's had the game locked, but we all still sat rapt, wondering if this was the day he was gonna break the single-game record. Nobody would really care if the prize for doing so was the same as if he had stood pat.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\']I may have missed it somewhere, but it's important not to be distracted: The OP concerns points versus money. You can have meaningless rounds regardless of which way you play. About the only advantage to a monetary score is that rounds that would otherwise be meaningless can at least have some importance. Case in point: Rock & Roll Jeopardy. In its first season, score was kept in points, and the winner got $5,000 regardless of score. Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. In the second season, the producers apparently saw the problem this created and had them play for dollars, as on the regular show.[/quote]
I suspect that Harry Friedman wanted the payouts to be just like the parent show (well, except for the $5,000 minimum to the champ), but VH1's budget in the first couple of seasons wouldn't permit it. After a while, Friedman got the channel to open the pocketbook and let them follow the regular rules.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 13 2004, 10:30 AM\'] [ I]f you're playing R&RJ! for points then if the leader has a lock on the game, it doesn't matter if he wagers 1 point or 10,000, he's still going home with five large, whereas if they are playing for the cash in front of them (to borrow a much beloved term from $otC), a player who has the victory locked could still make it an even bigger payday with a big bet, which adds SOME interest to the wager, even if the game isn't in question. [/quote]
Exactly. Incidentally, in the ToC that GSN recently aired, the scores from Day 1 of the finals were so far apart, and the scores entering FJ on Day 2 were so small that nothing anyone did in FJ had any bearing on how much they won. The third place player could not overtake the second-place player's total from Day 1 nor exceed the amount of money guaranteed for that spot. The second place player could not catch up to the leader's score from Day 1 nor exceed the guaranteed total for second place. Of course, no one has ever had enough in the ToC to even have a chance at topping that prize. As a result, that day's FJ was a complete and utter waste of time. (A pity, too, since I remember that I got it.)
-
The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars
That's the one thing that always bugged me about the original "Hollywood Squares". You couldn't win by default if it gave you three-in-a-row, but you could win by default if it gave you a five-square win. Huh?
The Bergeron version got it right...you ALWAYS have to earn the win yourself.
-
Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?
-
Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?
Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']
Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?
Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it.
-
I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 05:37 AM\'] I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs. [/quote]
Huh?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 10:40 AM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 05:37 AM\'] I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs. [/quote]
Huh? [/quote]
You would rather see squares without any of the bluffs? Good lord that would be boring. The Bergeron version (particularly the 2nd year) was great at allowing enough time for jokes *and* still getting in enough game time.
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:45 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']
Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?
Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it. [/quote]
Maybe bluffs and NOT winning by default would have been on the MG-HS had Mark Goodson NOT been a perfectionist (sorry if this a while for a post like this).
-
[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 09:08 PM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:45 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']
Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?
Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it. [/quote]
Maybe bluffs and NOT winning by default would have been on the MG-HS had Mark Goodson NOT been a perfectionist (sorry if this a while for a post like this). [/quote]
Or perhaps Goodson just had the good sense to see that such a thing was a bad idea.