-
In most cases, the "If it aint broke, don't fix it" adage was/has been the unwritten rule in game shows. However, there have been a few shows when a major rule or game format was changed during it's incarnation and the game became stronger because of it.
What have been the best "tweaks" made to a game show as far as the maingame play goes and as far as a bonus game goes?
Seeing the first few months of the original CBS Joker's Wild on GSN several years back, compared with the shows later in the 70's could be a good example of this:
MAINGAME:
Was -- Champion went first.
When 3 jokers pop up, game over, no questions asked (no pun intended)!
Tweaked Format -- Challenger went first.
If 3 jokers popped up, question was asked for win.
Champion always had last spin to tie/beat challenger's score or 3 joker spin.
BONUS GAME:
Was -- Jokers and Devils, survive spin to advance to next prize level.
Tweaked Format -- Spin to $1000, avoid the bad guy. (This would become one of Barry & Enright's signature formats).
Others??
-
The switching of the gameplay on "Tattletales" from buzz-ins to the "Newlywed Game" format was a good move, IMO.
-
You could make a case for Scrabble being a stronger game upon some of its format changes, notably the axing of the spelling format(Mosquitos).
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 09:54 AM\']Was -- Jokers and Devils, survive spin to advance to next prize level.
Tweaked Format -- Spin to $1000, avoid the bad guy. (This would become one of Barry & Enright's signature formats).
[snapback]101045[/snapback]
[/quote]
I thought the Joker/Devil prize level game was better. Call me crazy.
I liked when The Challengers changed their format from the every three day Ultimate Challenge to the daily UC- while I liked the fact that there was a possibility for a big cash jackpot, playing it only every so often kinda took some of the luster away from it. I mighta kept the accumulating pot, but it was a better bonus round to do everday. I also thought that eliminating the Challengers Sprint to put it in was good as well, because it never made sense to me that a speed round was in the very beginning of the show.
-
MAINGAME
Karn Feud making a double/triple round to make the game fair for both teams. Of course, it also gives us a chance to hear our favorite chant. ;-)
H^2 switching to the 2-out-of-3 format its final season.
END GAME
Hollywood Squares dumping the :60 "Double or Nothing" bonus round in favor of the two-part H^2 bonus round.
Osmond Pyramid allowing contestants to have their choice of giving or receiving...clues, that is. :-P (Bad Brandon, bad!)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 09:04 AM\']Osmond Pyramid allowing contestants to have their choice of giving or receiving...clues, that is. :-P (Bad Brandon, bad!)
[snapback]101050[/snapback]
[/quote]
Didn't the Clark/Cullen/Davidson PYRAMID offer the same option (I seem to recall a few occasions where the civilian gave the clues in the WC)?
Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 11:29 AM\']Didn't the Clark/Cullen/Davidson PYRAMID offer the same option (I seem to recall a few occasions where the civilian gave the clues in the WC)?
[/quote]
Yes; Kris Lane's site feature a clip of a civilian giving who won $0 giving to Tom Poston.
Brandon is refering to, I believe, the change Pyramid made in season 2--in season 1, only celebs. could give.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 10:35 AM\']Brandon is refering to, I believe, the change Pyramid made in season 2--in season 1, only celebs. could give.
[snapback]101059[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh. That's very different. Never mind.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues
-
MAINGAME:
Was -- Champion went first.
When 3 jokers pop up, game over, no questions asked (no pun intended)!
Tweaked Format -- Challenger went first.
If 3 jokers popped up, question was asked for win.
Champion always had last spin to tie/beat challenger's score or 3 joker spin.
I believe they didn't switch to having the Challenger go first until sometime in 1974. They had a rule that everybody had to have at least one spin, so if the champ spun three jokers and answered correctly, they'd have the challenger back (usually the very next game).
What does everyone think of the changes made on "Now You See It" in Dec 1974? Was it a stronger game after eliminating the first round?
-
Three tweaks to TPIR that really improved it (two in particular):
1. Going to an hour. This made the show more of an event and has, I think, contributed to its longevity.
2. Adding the Showcase Showdown (which, obviously, coincides with #1). This made it possible for a contestant who didn't win his pricing game, or won just a dinette instead of a car, still to get into the Showcase. It's still luck-based, much as the original system was (since being the top winner mostly depended on which prize you were fortunate enough to be offered in your pricing game), but a contestant's fate is in his own hands more than in the hands of the producer. Plus, it's probably the signature prop of the show now.
3. The Double Showcase Rule. Granted, this is the least of the three tweaks, but it still provides one important benefit (besides the excitement of seeing someone win both Showcases): It gives the second bidder an incentive to place a genuine bid even if he thinks that the first bidder has overbid. That makes the finish more exciting than it would be if the second bidder went for the $1 sucker punch.
-
On $ale's daytime version, they went to the WInner's Board in late 1984. This was a good change for two reasons.
1) In Daytime Shopping, contestants needed $650 for just the Cash Jackpot or $760 for all the prizes and the JP. This probably caused almost every major champ retired with the pot. Most of the time it was very anti-climatic. The Winner's Board added at lot more risk once that contestant won all 10 prizes off that board, they had the opportunity to try to win an 11th game and add $50,000. Or possibly lose that 11th game, and lose all their prizes.
2) This bonus game lasted a lot longer and brought a whole bunch of lot winners with it. I am assuming this made Sale last longer on NBC.
It's too bad that the board was done for in December of 87 and replaced with hell.
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 03:15 PM\']The Winner's Board added at lot more risk once that contestant won all 10 prizes off that board, they had the opportunity to try to win an 11th game and add $50,000. Or possibly lose that 11th game, and lose all their prizes.
[snapback]101084[/snapback]
[/quote]
Did anyone ever go on to an 11th game and lose? Did anyone ever stop after their 10th win? Yes, being a $otC megafan, I should know this answer. But I don't....yet.
-
While we're at it...
Powerball - The Game Show (Eubanks version, season 1): In the first few shows, the survey game was first. Afterwards, it was played last before the winner played Zero Gravity (with the last two with the most Powerball miles competing). The first show under the revised format saw contestant Timothy Holbrook win the $1 million. Also, Capsize's apparatus was changed from what appeared to be an anchor to a buoy.
(Eubanks version, season 2): Among the changes: a game called "Brainiac" was played second, with confusing rules. They went back to Capsize shortly afterwards. Only three contestants played the survey game and they had to answer by percentage instead of "YES/NO" in season 1. In Zero Gravity, there was only one spin (where in season 1, Eubanks asked the contestant to decide whether he/she would take the money from the first spin or risk it for the $1 million).
Brian
The Jehovah's Witnesses distribute Mad magazine?
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 03:15 PM\']1) In Daytime Shopping, contestants needed $650 for just the Cash Jackpot or $760 for all the prizes and the JP. This probably caused almost every major champ retired with the pot. Most of the time it was very anti-climatic.
[snapback]101084[/snapback]
[/quote]
On the syndicated version, didn't one win all the prizes on the stage first, then go for the jackpot? That's a simpler solution to the issue you raise.
I thought the winners' board blew. All the excitement of watching a stranger scratch off a lottery ticket. The original endgame (which wasn't really a game, per se) fit with the premise of the show. Not to say it couldn't have stood some tinkering--maybe a chance to gamble and win extra shopping money--but it shouldn't have been tossed aside entirely.
Two good tweaks from old panel shows: Letting the panel hold up their ballots and explain them rather than Bud gathering them on TTTT, and ditching the wild guess and the walk in front of the panel on WML?
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 04:06 PM\']
On the syndicated version, didn't one win all the prizes on the stage first, then go for the jackpot? That's a simpler solution to the issue you raise.
[snapback]101089[/snapback]
[/quote]
Right, it was $640 for all prizes or $750 for everything and the pot. But I was only speaking of the Daytime version.
The syndicated version shouldn't have been touched. The way they did shopping was excellent BUT things changed...
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 03:35 PM\']Did anyone ever go on to an 11th game and lose? Did anyone ever stop after their 10th win? Yes, being a $otC megafan, I should know this answer. But I don't....yet.
[snapback]101086[/snapback]
[/quote]
I have never seen a contestant play the 11th game and lose. There was a game where the contestant (Mark DeCarlo) was playing his 11th game and ended in a tie game, but he won by default on the tie breaker.
Yes, many contestants stopped on their 10th game and retired. This happened a lot in 1987.
There were also plenty o' games where the person was trying to clear the winner's board on the 10th show and lost. There was a champ on the Syndicated version who was going for his 10th win and a car. He lost by $5.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 07:08 AM\']The switching of the gameplay on "Tattletales" from buzz-ins to the "Newlywed Game" format was a good move, IMO.
[snapback]101046[/snapback]
[/quote]
I must respectfully disagree. I thought the buzz-in element and "One word or two?" was the only thing that kept Tattletales remotely interesting, and not just a carbon of TNG. If I wanna watch TNG (and I don't), I'll watch Bob, not Bert.
I wonder if my opinion is a widely held one. Certainly the producers of the show are in the other camp, because they changed the format. But what about on the board here?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 06:47 PM\']But what about on the board here?
[/quote]
I prefered the standard questions, as opposed to "Tattletale Quickies"--as you stated, they were what set the two shows apart.
Otherwise, it was Celebrity Newlywed Game.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 06:47 PM\']
I wonder if my opinion is a widely held one. Certainly the producers of the show are in the other camp, because they changed the format. But what about on the board here?
[snapback]101101[/snapback]
[/quote]
Nope. Didn't care for the original version. Loved the NG-style, esp with the scoring that allowed the pot to be split by teams with correct answers....
Just mah two cents...
-
Despite never having seen pre-Trebek Jeopardy!, I believe the elimination of "everyone wins the cash on their podium" was a big positive tweak.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 10:19 PM\']Despite never having seen pre-Trebek Jeopardy!, I believe the elimination of "everyone wins the cash on their podium" was a big positive tweak.
[snapback]101142[/snapback]
[/quote]
Which reminds me, I like the fact that the second and third place contestants win $2000 and $1000, respectively. I'd rather take the cash over a set of encyclopedias anyday.
Oh no, have I just turned into cool245?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 2 2005, 09:35 PM\']Which reminds me, I like the fact that the second and third place contestants win $2000 and $1000, respectively. I'd rather take the cash over a set of encyclopedias anyday.
Oh no, have I just turned into cool245?
[snapback]101151[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not yet. You're not nearly as cool as him. Yet. :-P
Doug -- and the countdown to 1600 continues
-
As a game player, I preferred the "He Said She Said" format on "TT." Entertainment-wise, all-quickies was better--and the thing that distinguished "TT" from "TNG" was that the questions became more intelligent and thought-provoking, since they were often based on ethical and moral issues and not on "Where's your favorite place to make whoopee?" Giving the viewers something to think about is not a bad idea.
-
As a game player, I preferred the "He Said She Said" format on "TT."
I'm glad you said that...for a while I've been thinking that I was the only one!
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 01:08 PM\']
As a game player, I preferred the "He Said She Said" format on "TT."
I'm glad you said that...for a while I've been thinking that I was the only one!
[snapback]101259[/snapback]
[/quote]
It was nifty in theory, but the problem I had was when someone would ring in, and retell the store more or less correctly, but with some key facts goofed up. At that point things started getting gray-area for me. Is it a match? They have the same IDEA, but it's not the same story. They would then have to make a judgement call as to whether they gave them credit (usually erring on the side of credit, which made sense), and I disliked that.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 04:08 PM\']
As a game player, I preferred the "He Said She Said" format on "TT."
I'm glad you said that...for a while I've been thinking that I was the only one!
[snapback]101259[/snapback]
[/quote]
The TT buzz-in questions were fun, but there was one big flaw, IMO:
If a celebrity pair was quick enough on the buzzers, they could pretty much control the bulk of the game, whether or not their better halves would correctly buzz in off the clue word.
At least in the HS/SS ep I have in my collection, they take more than just the first person that buzzes in. Perhaps if they did that on TT, it might have been more interesting.
However, I liked the quickies better, as all 3 couples had a shot to win a share of the pot, and unlike TNG's relationship questions, a lot of the celebs would consult with the audience members before giving their final answer.
-
Regardless of the format itself, I liked TT when it was all quickies. The questions were typically more thought provoking than NG's and even then it was celebrities answering them. The original format, when I first heard of it, sounded like some potboiler a poster would come up with here. In practice, when I finally saw it, it didn't look much better than it sounded.
-Jason
-
A positive tweak for The $xx,000 Pyramid came with the arrival of The New $25,000 Pyramid on CBS in 1982 when tie-breakers were based on time if all 7 clues were solved. It was also nice that all players got a second shot at the front game just in case their celebrity partner was a dud.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 10:47 PM\']A positive tweak for The $xx,000 Pyramid came with the arrival of The New $25,000 Pyramid on CBS in 1982 when tie-breakers were based on time if all 7 clues were solved. It was also nice that all players got a second shot at the front game just in case their celebrity partner was a dud.
[snapback]101300[/snapback]
[/quote]
The tiebreaker format was changed to avoid straddling Winner's Circle rounds into the next show, which still happened at the end of the ABC run back when it would take multiple tiebreakers to determine a winner. Although a 1983 Michael J. Fox episode had four tiebreakers in one show, as the teams had tied at less than seven in the first two tiebreakers of the first game.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 10:47 PM\']A positive tweak for The $xx,000 Pyramid came with the arrival of The New $25,000 Pyramid on CBS in 1982 when tie-breakers were based on time if all 7 clues were solved. It was also nice that all players got a second shot at the front game just in case their celebrity partner was a dud.
[snapback]101300[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh, good catch.
For that matter, what about the tweak from 8-in-30 to 7-in-30 which, among other things, made the perfect score 21?
-
If a celebrity pair was quick enough on the buzzers, they could pretty much control the bulk of the game, whether or not their better halves would correctly buzz in off the clue word.
Well...that is a good point...and the week that James Brolin was on certainly is a good case in point. However, if you notice on the "story", or "buzz in" questions, more often than not they'd do the same question more than once. If the couple in the red section correctly matched the first time around, they'd repeat the question to give one of the other sections a chance. So, although a good couple could have more "control" over the game, the repeating of questions helped even things out a little.
Having said that, I'm surprised the celebrities could come up with stories so quickly. I've tried playing along from time to time, and I couldn't come up with anything that quickly.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Nov 4 2005, 08:54 AM\']
If a celebrity pair was quick enough on the buzzers, they could pretty much control the bulk of the game, whether or not their better halves would correctly buzz in off the clue word.
Well...that is a good point...and the week that James Brolin was on certainly is a good case in point. However, if you notice on the "story", or "buzz in" questions, more often than not they'd do the same question more than once. If the couple in the red section correctly matched the first time around, they'd repeat the question to give one of the other sections a chance. So, although a good couple could have more "control" over the game, the repeating of questions helped even things out a little.
Having said that, I'm surprised the celebrities could come up with stories so quickly. I've tried playing along from time to time, and I couldn't come up with anything that quickly.
[snapback]101329[/snapback]
[/quote]
It seemed to me that at a later point in the original format, there was a disclaimer stating something like "some celebrities were supplied with topics in advance"--guessing that one half of the couple was fed topics beforehand and the other wasn't. Surprising, especially considering that Goodson always boasted that he never fed material in advance to celebs on his shows ("WML?" and "TNTS" suggestions of "gambit" lines of questioning to certain panelists notwithstanding).
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 10:47 PM\']A positive tweak for The $xx,000 Pyramid came with the arrival of The New $25,000 Pyramid on CBS in 1982 when tie-breakers were based on time if all 7 clues were solved. It was also nice that all players got a second shot at the front game just in case their celebrity partner was a dud.
[snapback]101300[/snapback]
[/quote]
Seconded, especially the second part. Add to that the change roughly midway through the NY years from having the celeb give on the third turn to giving them the choice. Pyramid is the only communication game show I can recall where they gave contestants any choice. (I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
[snapback]101427[/snapback]
[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:52 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.
[/quote]
That works both ways, though. You're giving FABULOUS clues, and that BONEHEAD just can't come up with the words...you're just as screwed.
-
I must respectfully disagree. I thought the buzz-in element and "One word or two?" was the only thing that kept Tattletales remotely interesting, and not just a carbon of TNG. If I wanna watch TNG (and I don't), I'll watch Bob, not Bert
Put me on the "clue word" bandwagon, as well...I liked that format, despite the flaws stated by Lemon and others...was more interesting, and the stories were often quite amusing.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 03:18 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:52 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:17 AM\'](I always thought Password contestants should have had some choice, and Pyramid contestants had too much.)
[/quote]
Especially with Alphabetics/Super Password. If I'm gonna get screwed out of $5,000 (or whatever jackpot), let it be my fault, not because of my celebrity partner.
[/quote]
That works both ways, though. You're giving FABULOUS clues, and that BONEHEAD just can't come up with the words...you're just as screwed.
[snapback]101468[/snapback]
[/quote]
I understand what you mean, but to me it would be way less frustrating than never having a chance because your partner gave an illegal clue.
-
Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Prefered the original thirty-section gameboard and puzzle design. Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. I didn't miss "Forfeits." Hated the colored rebus puzzles. No opinion concerning all the bonus rounds.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 05:40 PM\'][quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?[/quote]
I believe he was mixing together the good and bad tweaks in his post.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 05:40 PM\'][quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 02:48 PM\']Concentration vs. Classic Concentration
Enjoyed the rule that allowed a player to hold a "Take" until the opponent had something worthy of taking. [/quote]
Didn't Classic Concentration permit this too?
[snapback]101741[/snapback]
[/quote]
IIRC Classic Concentration was the only version to allow a Take card to be held onto rather than having to use it right away.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 07:43 PM\']IIRC Classic Concentration was the only version to allow a Take card to be held onto rather than having to use it right away.
[snapback]101752[/snapback]
[/quote]
Exactamundo!!!
So whether or not your opponent had a good or a gag prize, you had to take it if it were the only thing they had, otherwise you would just "Take" another turn.
That is one of the reasons why they included gag gifts on the board -- you could forfeit a bad gift away without losing any good prizes.
Quick question on the Forfeit Card -- Regardless what you had or didn't have on your side of the board when you matched Forfeits, you never "forfeited" or lost your turn, Correct?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 08:50 PM\'][Quick question on the Forfeit Card -- Regardless what you had or didn't have on your side of the board when you matched Forfeits, you never "forfeited" or lost your turn, Correct?
[snapback]101758[/snapback]
[/quote]
That is correct. If you did match the "forfeit one gift" and had no prizes to forfeit, you still were allowed to try and solve the puzzle and if not, your turn kept going.
On the Syndicated version, I remember there were no gag prizes, but smaller prizes such as "Root Beer" and "Hot Dogs" to forfeit.
BTW: If those who still have a home version (or for some, maybe more than one version) of Concentration, you can create your own gag prizes and make your own prizes to equal what they are worth today, this to make it a little bit more fun.