[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163265\' date=\'Sep 10 2007, 01:21 PM\']
I don't understand how Feud plays to a dollar amount without any straddling issues, but it becomes a problem with Password.[/quote]
With Feud, you have some control over how long a round lasts. If you plan for four rounds and need five, a 3-answer puzzle can be played very quickly (especially when they added the "I'll only read the question once, and when I get to you, you have three seconds to answer" rule). Password, on the other hand, not only had all of its puzzles the same size, but had the problem that it was possible for nobody to solve a puzzle (I'm not 100% sure, but I think there was at least one show where the game lasted so long that they didn't have time for the bonus round).
Here's a problem: what other solutions are there besides these three:
1. No significantly increased points in later rounds, which make the later rounds irrelevant in a blowout;
2. Significantly increased points in later rounds, which make the early rounds meaningless;
3. Straddling, which seems to be a problem in terms of "we want self-contained shows that we can show in any order"?
Jeopardy! doesn't seem to have a problem with "either someone is so far ahead that Final Jeopardy is meaningless, or it comes down to somebody with a big lead lost just because they didn't know the last question (er, answer)", so why do other shows?
(Here's an idea for Password: end the head-to-head game with a lightning round that's worth, say, $250 a word - that way, you give both players a reasonable chance to win and you don't use up too much time doing it. The problem is, you now have a bonus round that's almost exactly like the round you've just played twice in the main game.)
(Er, yes, that is pretty much what chill411 suggested, isn't it...)
-- Don
