A moot point

[Clay Zambo]

The good DrBear's comment about the play-along factor in the "What's Going On?" thread causes me to think about the same in various iterations of "Password."

With the password supered on the screen at all times, it seems to me that this was a show that actually encouraged you NOT to watch.  It's really only possible to play along if you're only listening. The same is true for "Pyramid," come to think of it.

Any others?

How would you do things differently were you in the producer's chair?

[Steve Gavazzi]

I dunno about this...I think there's still a reasonable amount of playalong value in Password (and Pyramid, as well), trying to come up with better clues than the contestants.  Doesn't work quite the same as on other shows, but it's always been good enough for me.

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Apr 21 2005, 10:31 AM\']With the password supered on the screen at all times, it seems to me that this was a show that actually encouraged you NOT to watch.  It's really only possible to play along if you're only listening. The same is true for "Pyramid," come to think of it.

[snapback]82735[/snapback]

[/quote]
On the contrary, having the word on the screen added to the play-along value.  How?  By causing the home viewer to participate in giving the clues.

You know how it works.  You see "SWORD" on the screen, and rather than waiting to hear what Betty White's clue will be, you shout out "rapier."  Or "Things That Are Purple" comes on, and you say, "Grapes . . . eggplant . . . violets . . . ."

If you want to play along as the receiver, you're free to turn around, but it's probably more engaging to participate as a giver.

[chris319]

Former Password producer Frank Wayne used to call Password "schmucksay". If the Password was "cold", the viewer was supposed to yell at the TV, "schmuck, say 'hot'!" (back in the days of "opposite" clues).

[alfonzos]

You Don't Say introduced a playalong game. Once each day the show would not reveal the name the contestants where trying to guess. I found myself not playing along and that surprised me.

Let's Play Post Office revealed the subject of the letter before each game. I would play with a relative and I thought we were hiding our eyes and playing together. One day I turned to see my relative cheating. Bummer.

[dizzy]

During Password I still used to play along. I used to block my ears and cover my eyes for a few seconds so that I would not hear or see the Password. I didn't always do this, but when I wanted to play along I did.

Dizzy

[Gromit]

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' date=\'Apr 21 2005, 08:51 AM\']On the contrary, having the word on the screen added to the play-along value.

If you want to play along as the receiver, you're free to turn around, but it's probably more engaging to participate as a giver.

[snapback]82738[/snapback]

[/quote]

By putting up the password once then removing it, you allow *both* kinds of participation, those who want to give, and those who want to receive.

I often did this, but the problem playing receiver was that you didn't get any feedback of course. So you'd yell out your word on the first clue, but wouldn't know if you were correct or not until someone said your word.

[BrandonFG]

Well, at least in the case of Password+, and parts of SP's run, you could just close your eyes since the clue wasn't announced. Same for Pyramid...I always found myself playing along with the Winner's Circle, at least with Osmond's version. Clark's was a little too challenging. ;-)

[DrBear]

since I sorta inspired this...

I'm a strong believer that a lot of the fun of game shows is playing along. I mean, even WML? has a factor of playalong, even though we see the occupation or mystery guest. (Yes, my wife and I watch them and both say 'yes' or 'no' before the contestant does on a tough question. Then again we have no lives.)

Consider the best ads GSN ever did — "sputnik" and "botulism." Those summed it up neatly - "you know you know" and that is one of the things that draws us to this genre.

Some games are better than others - Family Feud was one of the better ones, The Dating Game one of the worst - but they all have to have some.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I think Pyramid has much much much more playalong value with the categories shown on screen.

But then, given the chance to actually BE on Pyramid, I would've claimed the giver's chair before the celebrity could blink.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Apr 21 2005, 04:52 PM\']since I sorta inspired this...

I'm a strong believer that a lot of the fun of game shows is playing along. I mean, even WML? has a factor of playalong, even though we see the occupation or mystery guest. (Yes, my wife and I watch them and both say 'yes' or 'no' before the contestant does on a tough question. Then again we have no lives.)

[snapback]82778[/snapback]

[/quote]

Absolutely.  WML handled it very well, showing the occupation for just a second.  If I want to play along, I can look away for a second or two during the reveal.  In a Mystery Guest round, I can close my eyes and feel just like a panelist.  Except I seldom dress as well as they do, and my wife hardly ever wears a gown.

[Unrealtor]

I've always found knowing what the contestants were looking for and having the play-along on the giving end only worked for Password, but the fast pace of Pyramid's frontgame, especially with $25,000 and after (including Osmond), made it difficult to play along. It was still impressive to watch, and had the "shmucksay" interaction when things went poorly enough to give you a chance to think.

Also, on those rare occasions when I try to play along as a reciever, I find that the better contestants get the answer before I do, which can be more frustrating than screaming the perfect clue (or so you think) at the TV, only to have it not given because the show is 20 years old.