If I Could Bring Back: "Trivia Trap" (2/2)

Welcome back!

Hopefully, you're intrigued by what I've written so far about how I would produce "Trivia Trap" if I was, hypothetically, given the opportunity. As you'll likely recall, I would bring back the original "Trivia Trap" round for Round 1. Let's pick things up with Round 2....

Round 2: New Trivia Trap
In a complete reversal from the first round, the players are now trying to find the correct answer to the multiple-choice questions (still 4 possible answers). Again, there are three questions, so each teammate has a chance to go first, second and third: every player has a chance to pick the first answer, and the other two teammates have their chance to agree or disagree. Each question would work the same way as it did during the original run: if all three agree on the right answer, they win $200; if two agree on the right answer, it's $100; and if only one person has locked in on the right answer, it's $50. The team who has the lead at the end of the first round would get the first pick of the first and last pair of categories.

Round 3: $1,000 Trivia Race
It is possible to win up to $1,050 in the first two rounds...but doing so requires one team to be perfect in the first two rounds. If a team can actually clear six questions without making a single mistake...they deserve to skip the Trivia Race and go right to the bonus round. However, this is very improbable...so if neither team has a perfect first two rounds, they will race to the $1,000 goal in the Trivia Race. Because both teams will be a lot closer to $1,000 than in the two previous versions of "Trivia Trap", where the maximums were $600 and $550...the Trivia Race should be a lot shorter than in those previous versions. This will also help to compensate for the extended length of time needed for the first two rounds. The Trivia Race would run exactly the same way as in the original show. I'd have to see just how long it takes for one team to reach $1,000 under this format at $100 per question, and theoretically higher totals at the beginning of the Trivia Race. If it consistently takes more than 15 or so questions, I may institute the rule of doubling the value of each question after 10 or so have been asked.

Bonus Round: Progressive Trivia Ladder
Again, the final round would be run more or less the same way as in the original game show, but with one significant twist. When a player answers one of the first three questions correctly, he/she wins the $1,000 as normal...but when one of the first three questions is answered incorrectly, the $1,000 is added to the "Pot of Gold" at the top of the Trivia Ladder...which will start at the original $10,000. This progressive Pot of Gold will keep growing in $1,000 increments until one or more players reach the top of the Trivia Ladder and correct answer the final question. If no one correctly answers the final question, the current amount of the Pot of Gold is carried over to the next day for the next team to play for. I personally think this would add excitement to "Trivia Trap"...a Pot of Gold that can grow to more than double the original $10,000 before someone hits the Jackpot. Combine this with all of the other elements described above, and I think "Trivia Trap" could make a run of at least several years.

Of course, it's unlikely that "Trivia Trap" will ever be revived...it's been over 20 years since the show went off the air. But who knows...maybe when I finally become a successful game show producer, I could experiment by bringing the show back myself. I'd have to buy the rights to the show, naturally...but I'd be willing to give it a shot. Oh, well...I can always dream, right?

Until next time, folks....
Read more!

If I Could Bring Back: "Trivia Trap" (1/2)

Greetings, folks:

One of many things I like about watching the Game Show Network (or GSN) is the ability to watch game shows that aired either before I was born or before I turned 5...when I would have actually remembered watching those game shows. Some examples of this include: "Match Game", "Password Plus", the original "Card Sharks", "Double Dare" (not the Nickelodeon game show), and the subject of this particular post: "Trivia Trap."

I think "Trivia Trap" (October 1984 - April 1985) was a pretty good game on its own...but since it only lasted for one season, it's apparent that it was not popular enough for a long run. If ever given a chance to revive it, this is how I would run the game (you may want to read the original rules for reference):

First, I would remove the "Juniors vs. Seniors" premise of "Trivia Trap" in favor allowing a greater variety of teams. I'd personally like to see what would happen if two teams of players all under 30, or two teams of players all 30+ competed against each other. Removing the age limitations would for a greater variety of teams. Some examples I would enjoy seeing include: college trivia bowl students and their advisor; a recent college graduate and his/her proud parents; a three-generation team, such as a grandmother/mother/daughter team; etc. There would be many possibilities in addition to the usual groups of brothers, sisters, and best friends...who would most likely be of similar ages already.

Round 1: Original Trivia Trap
The task of removing wrong answers from a question instead of simply going after the right answer was, in my opinion, what make "Trivia Trap" unique as a trivia game show...so why not leave it in? This time, however...there would be 3 questions posed to each team (4 possible answers), giving each player a chance to go first, second, and third. The first wrong answer removed would be worth $25, the second is worth $50, and the third be worth $75...for a total of $150. The reason for this increasing scale is because it's more difficult to pick one of 2 wrong answers out of 3 than picking one of 3 wrong answers out of 4...and to pick the one remaining wrong answer out of 2 is more difficult still. The champions would get to go first in this round by picking either the top set of answers or the bottom set of answers to play with...either of which will be replaced by a new set of answers for the other team to pick from. The other team would then make their choice, and that choice would be replaced by another new set of answers...and so on until each team has faced three questions.

Stay tuned to see how I would run the rest of "Trivia Trap!"
Read more!

If I Could Bring Back: "Fun House"

Hello, everyone:

I was cruising through "YouTube" perusing through game shows from my childhood about a month ago...when I ran across this little gem:



That's right...it's "FUN HOUSE"!! This is one of several game shows from the 1980s that brought back so many memories of my childhood. The stunts were mildly amusing to watch, and the bonus questions (all multiple-choice) were pretty good. The fact that equal emphasis was given to brain and brawn...25 points for each stunt, and 25 points for each question...is even more appealing to me now than when I originally began watching Fun House. The different variations for the "Fun House Grand Prix" really didn't make for that much variety in the final 2-lap race between the Red and Gold teams...but for some reason, I was always fascinated with just how many tokens (worth 10 or 25 points) each team could gather as their final scores were tallied.

However, the most fun part of the show was to watch the winning team run through the FUN HOUSE! Not only was it fun to watch each winning team's approach to collecting as many cash and prize tags as possible in 2 minutes (a 15-second bonus clock was added after a few seasons), but the background music was awesome...though I would get to hear the same music during the Grand Prix as well. I once had the opportunity to be on "Fun House" by participating in a citywide trivia contest (courtesy of the "FOX 28 Kids Club" in Columbus, OH), which qualified me to audition for the show! Unfortunately, I didn't make it past the audition, so....

There really isn't much I would change about "Fun House", quite frankly. In order to add my own personal touch, I might have the two teams participate in five physical stunts worth $50 apiece...two for the boys, two for the girls, and one where both teammates work together. Next, the game would end with a "lightning round" of 10 multiple-choice questions worth $25 apiece...in which the boys and girls take turns at their respective buzzers for each question (the girls would compete on the first question, the boys would compete on the second, and so on). This would make a total of $250 for each section of the game, which keeps an equal emphasis on mind and body. Both teams would win the amount of money earned during the game, and that money would be awarded to each teammate...rather than being split between them.

For the Fun House, I would probably have 8 Cash tags, 6 Prize tags, and 2 Time tags. For the Cash tags, there would be two $100s, two $150s, two $200s, and 2 $250s...it's a much better variety than having mostly $100s with a few $200s sprinkled in. The Prize tags I would more or less leave alone...it's nice to have bicycles, sailboats, trips, and other things that kids in general would like to have up for grabs in the Fun House. The Time tags would be a great twist, however...because they could be collected just like the other tags, rather than going for the lone time clock in addition to the tags. The Time tags would be worth 15 seconds apiece, and this would be very important to the way I would set up the Fun House: I would have each teammate go in and collect 4 tags instead of just three...so it would be possible for the teammates to grab all 16 tags in two trips each. If they were successful in "cleaning house", as in "College Mad House"...they would win a special bonus prize similar to that of the "Power Prize" featured in the above video. This is where the Time tags would come into play...if both were collected, the teammates would have up to 2 minutes and 30 seconds to collect all of the tags. It'd be interesting to see if any team could pull it off. What do you think about this?
Read more!

How Would I Change: "Duel"?

Greetings:

I happened to see the special "Duel" mini-series on ABC in December (2007). It's a very interesting game...two players start each Duel with 10 chips worth $5,000 apiece, competing to answer multiple-choice questions correctly, even if it means selecting two, three, or all four of the possible answer choices by covering said choices with a chip. Each player has all the time in the world to answer a question, unless the first player to lock in decides to use a "Press" and limit his/her opponent's time to 7 additional seconds. Any chips placed on wrong answers are taken away and added to a progressive Jackpot. The player who is caught not covering the right answer is eliminated, and the winner collects all of his/her remaining chips in cash. In order to begin a Duel, a lone player (either the first randomly selected player of the tournament, or the winner of the last Duel) must select one of three randomly chosen opponents from the "Players' Gallery", which started with 24 players. One person is eliminated at a time...until the final night of play, when the four players who won the greatest number of Duels enter a single-elimination tournament for that progressive jackpot that had been building from all of the previous Duel...it reached over $1.7 million by the time of the final Duel.

There is really just one thing I would change about Duel if it was up to me. The way Duel is currently set up, there isn't enough time for all 24 players to have a chance to play. Also, since the Top 4 is determined by the number of Duels won first (and money won from the Duels second)...a minimum of two, in this case...the very last person to be picked before the final tournament is totally screwed. Even if he/she wins, there won't be enough time for that player to play another Duel to possibly make it into the Top 4. Something else that bothered me about "Duel" was the selection process for opponents...I was annoyed by the fact that the "Software Engineer", from near the beginning of the tournament on to the end of the week, was consistently passed over. I'm not sure why...but I'm guessing that all the players who had him as a potential opponent were afraid that someone who was a software engineer would be too smart for them (remember my third directive?).

There is one simple solution that would resolve both of these problems. Why not make "Duel" a single-elimination tournament from the very beginning? Start with 16 players instead of the original 24 (since 6-8 out of the original 24 wouldn't get the chance to play, anyway), and play through four rounds of matches. This way, all of the participants who qualify for the main game are given the chance to play...with no chance to be "passed over"...and the winner is the player who had the right combination of knowledge, skill, and luck to win all of his/her matches. That is how competition is supposed to work, after all. I wonder if ABC would actually take this suggestion seriously...?

Also, I couldn't help but notice the way the final match ended...in which Ashlee Register (the Nurse) chose to cover all of her answers on the final question: "Which of these weighs more...a gallon of water, a gallon of crude oil, a gallon of vegetable oil, or they all weigh the same?" Ashlee promptly covered all of her answers, clearly having no idea. The Car Dealer, on the other hand, covered everything except "a gallon of water"...which was, in fact, the correct answer. I understand that the object of "Duel" is to make sure you are covering the correct answer in order to survive...but Ashlee won simply because she covered all of the answers. At least the Car Dealer tried to eliminate an answer he thought was wrong. I can't quite put my finger on why that bothers me, though. Oh, well....
Read more!

Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (5/5)

Hello again, folks:

Here is the final collage in the series I made for my Digital Manipulation class...featuring my original game of chance, "Try Your Luck!"

This game is simple...a contestant picks an envelope to determine the time limit (60 - 75 seconds) he/she will have for the "Puzzle Round", which determines how many picks that contestant will have on the big 50-square "Money Board" (top center of the collage). First, the contestant picks a square, the "Lucky Square", that remains unrevealed while he/she picks other squares on the board to build up the money the contestant will win if he/she decides to play it safe. The possible dollar amounts line the bottom of this collage, from $100 to $1,000. After running out of picks, the contestant has the choice of keeping the money amassed from the Money Squares revealed...or taking the number of picks earned times the dollar amount hidden under the Lucky Square for up to $1,000 per pick. If the contestant is lucky enough to find the "Lucky Star" (bottom center of the collage), he/she will have a chance to play the "Lucky Star Game" (directly below my picture) to possibly double the money won from the Money Board.

In this game, the only way a contestant ends up with nothing is if he/she can't solve a single puzzle during the Puzzle Round...which would mean no picks on the Money Board. However, the Puzzle Round is made to be easy...so this is virtually impossible. Also, even if the contestant decides to "Try His/Her Luck" by taking a chance on the Lucky Square...only to reveal $100 (which is what happened to the two contestants featured on the bottom corners of the "Try Your Luck" logo)...that's the least a contestant can leave with on this show. All of this is consistent with my first directive, in which a contestant should not leave empty-handed unless he/she completely blows it.

Also, when a contestant is faced with the decision of playing it safe or Trying His/Her Luck...the reward typically outweighs the risk, pursuant to my second directive. Take the examples of the four contestants I've featured in this collage:

Top right: $5,900 with 14 picks. Maximum Prize: $14,000
Risk: $4,500 - Reward: $8,100 (Lucky Square held $500)

Top left: $6,200 with 15 picks. Maximum Prize: $15,000
Risk: $4,700 - Reward: $8,800 (Lucky Square held $100)

Bottom left: $9,700 with 20 picks. Maximum Prize: $20,000
Risk: $7,700 - Reward: $10,300 (Lucky Square held $100)

Bottom right: $7,300 with 14 picks. Maximum Prize: $14,000
Risk: $5,900 - Reward: $6,700 (Lucky Square held $100)

When the potential reward outweighs the risk, it also makes taking a chance on that Lucky Square more tempting...even when it's a bad idea, as was the case for the two contestants in the bottom corners. But hey...you never know when that next Lucky Square will be hiding $1,000, even when it's statistically a bad idea to go for it....

Thanks for taking a look at my collage series. Until next time, folks....
Read more!

Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (4/5)

Greetings:

Continuing with my series of collages for my Digital Manipulation class, I decided to base both of my other two images on the two game shows I've produced that are consistent with my philosophy. I'll start with the collage I've made for the "Jackpot Trivia Bowl":


There it is...with representations of everything that went into making the show. In the far left column...question cards made by me that have actually been used on the show. In the second column from the left...the indispensable "Help" tokens, including the "RESET" token which can come in handy if a contestant misses a question early in the game. In the third column from the left...pictures of the money scale, the slot machine, and yours truly as the host. Finally, in the far right column, the most important part of any game show...the contestants! These are four contestants who have completed their respective games, and their resulting "winnings."

How does "Jackpot Trivia Bowl" fall in line with my philosophy? First, a contestant does not lose tuition money for an incorrect answer...all it does is stop the game. So...as long as the contestant can at least answer the first question correctly, he/she will get something. It's also possible for the contestant to win money from the slot machine: either the free $100 cash prize or the $500 and $1,000 cash bonuses that are attached to the $2,000 and $5,000 questions, respectively. Once a contestant earns cash, that money can't be taken away...even if he/she resets the game after winning it. This is consistent with my first directive, in which contestants should not leave with nothing unless they completely blow it. In fact, in order for a contestant to wind up with nothing in Jackpot Trivia Bowl...he/she, in addition to coming up empty on the slot machine, must miss the $50 question after resetting the game. That's really difficult to do...especially when an example of a $50 question is: "In the United States, how many of the seven days of the week end with 'y'?" If a contestant does miss such a question, however...there's nothing I can do for that contestant.

Also, when a contestant chooses to reset the game, he/she must return all tuition money earned from answering questions. Even if the contestant has reached $5,000 before resetting the game, the Jackpot is a minimum of $10,000. This means the contestant would be risking $5,000 to reach an amount which is at least $5,000 more than what he/she is giving up...perfectly consistent with my second directive on how the risk should always be less than or equal to the potential reward, or at least be close.

Coming soon...the conclusion of my collage series, featuring "Try Your Luck!"
Read more!

Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (3/5)

Greetings:

At last, the conclusion of my explanation of my first collage. I've posted it one more time for you....


3) Consistent: "Power of 10." Contestants who end up playing the main game for $10,000,000 (which no one will ever get unless he/she is incredibly lucky AND courageous) must first survive an "elimination round" by beating an opponent in predicting the results of a poll question...best 3 out of 5. It's a little sad that only 1 out of every 2 contestants who qualify to be on "Power of 10" end up playing for those life-changing sums of money...but if you're going to eliminate contestants from the game, that is certainly the way to do it.

Conflict: "Weakest Link." You can read my full explanation of this in the post "My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 3/3, Ending)"; but the main reason this game show appears as the "conflict" has to do with the round-by-round voting for the so-called "Weakest Link." While the contestants were supposed to eliminate the weakest players in order to make more money for later rounds...they would almost always eventually start voting off the strongest players in order to eliminate the potential competition in the final round. As a result, they would often end up voting off the "Strongest Link" for a particular round. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the show when Anne Robinson or George Gray has to tell the strongest player that he/she is the "Weakest Link"? For this reason, decisions about which contestants stay and which ones go should never be left in the hands of the contestants themselves, because this is exactly what tends to happen...but that's just my opinion.

Coming up next, a collage featuring one of my original games: Jackpot Trivia Bowl!
Read more!

Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (2/5)

Hello again:

Here it is...part 2 of the explanation of my first collage. I've reposted said collage for your convenience.


2) Consistent: "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Granted, the first five questions force contestants to risk $200 for $300, and than $300 for $500...but both of those risk/reward figures are close enough, and the questions at that level are easy enough for there not to be any real problem. Also, when the second milestone changed from $32,000 to $25,000...this meant that a contestant is risking $15,000 to add $9,000 to his/her total. However, since the contestant is playing to jump from a guaranteed $1,000 to a guaranteed $25,000...it seems to justify this gap, but I still think it was better before the changes to the "Money Tree" ($32,000 to $25,000, $64,000 to $50,000, and $125,000 to $100,000). After that, however, the reward always outweighs the risk...with a maximum risk of $475,000 for a reward of $500,000 on the $1 million question.

Conflict: "Don't Forget the Lyrics!" With a guarantee of $25,000 after 4 songs correctly filled in...the reward outweighs the risk until the player reaches $200,000. The next level is $350,000...meaning the player risks losing $175,000 to add $150,000. Here the risk outweighs the reward, but at least it's relatively close. However, when going from $350,000 to $500,000...the contestant has to risk losing $325,000 to add another $150,000. That has got to be the most lopsided risk/reward combination I've ever seen in television game shows...and the producers of "Don't Forget the Lyrics!" should consider fixing it. Whether or not they actually will is another story, however....

Stay tuned for part 3 of the explanation for this image....
Read more!

Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (1/5)

Hello, folks:

I recently completed a project for the "Digital Manipulation" class I'm taking this quarter (Winter 2008), and thought I'd share it with all of you. I decided to start this series with an image that established my game show philosophy...and give examples of game shows I've seen that are either consistent or in conflict with each of my three "directives." Feel free to check out the "My Philosophy on Game Shows" series if you need to be brought up to date. Here is the first image:


For the most part, this is pretty self-explanatory...but there may be some who want to know why I've picked these six shows as examples:

1) Consistent: "Wheel of Fortune." When a contestant ends the game without having solved a puzzle, he/she is given $1,000 as a consolation prize. Aside from that, there is a house minimum of $1,000 for every puzzle that a contestant does solve...very useful for when someone gains control of the wheel with only one or two consonants remaining in the puzzle.

Conflict: "Greed." As Chuck Woolery reminds each group at the beginning of a game: if the group misses any question, they lose everything...even if they'd made it to $200,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000. It was only during "Super Greed" that the group acquired a guarantee of $200,000 after correctly answering the $1,000,000 question. While that certainly is nice...the players who were "terminated" before the $1,000,000 question still ended up with nothing. None of this ever sat very well with me, especially when the players who were "challenged" were eliminated (the player who is chosen by the Terminator to receive $10,000 for challenging another player for his/her share of the money was the "challenger"; the player chosen by the challenger was the "challenged.").

I'll explain the rest of this image in the next post. Stay tuned....
Read more!

If I Could Bring Back: "Press Your Luck"

Hello, everyone...and welcome to the first of what will be another regular feature on this blog of mine. Allow me to set it up a little....

I enjoy watching classic game shows, whether it's to relive memories of my childhood when I first watched these shows (1980s to early 1990s), or to see how games worked before I was around to watch them (1970s and earlier). Needless to say, I was really happy to discover Game Show Network back in the late 1990s. I didn't understand everything that went on in these game shows back when I was a kid...but being able to see them when I was older helped me to appreciate them that much more. I wish they hadn't stopped production of these games before I was old enough to play them, such as "Scrabble", "The $100,000 Pyramid", "Super Password"...maybe even "Blockbusters" or "Card Sharks."

Anyway, sometimes I see a game show that has a great basic concept...but the implementation of that concept could use some work. One example that comes to mind is "Now You See It", which I will discuss in a later post. For this post, however, I will focus on one of my all-time favorite game shows: "Press Your Luck". I never did understand why it went off the air in 1986 after only 3 seasons...maybe they just weren't getting the ratings they needed. I was happy at first to see "Whammy: The All-New Press Your Luck", but when I saw exactly how the game was changed, as well as the new format for the Big Board...I was disappointed. But again, that's for a later post.

Personally, I think "Press Your Luck" was great just the way it was. I might change the question rounds a little bit...in which the three players got a free spin, followed by 3 questions to add to those spins for Round 1; then 5 questions for the second round (with no free spins), so players would have more shots at the bigger bucks in Round 2. The one change I'd really like to make, however, involves the elusive "Add-A-One", a prize square that Press Your Luck added to their Round 1 Big Board around the beginning of their third season (September 1985). Any "Press Your Luck" fan knows that this square puts a "1" in front of a player's current total when hit: $0 would become $10, $100 would become $1,100, and $1,000 would become $11,000. Here's my question...what if a player already had $10,000? I'm sure the producers of Press Your Luck already thought of this...which is why Add-A-One only appeared in Round 1, where it was virtually impossible for any player to amass $10,000 in winnings. Perhaps they weren't prepared to pay a player who won the game by hitting Add-A-One after amassing $10,000...as they already had to make a six-figure payout to Michael Larson. If you haven't already figured it out by now, this would be my idea for Press Your Luck...the Add-A-One should be put in Round 2! How exciting would it be to watch a player win $100,000 in a single spin on the famous "Big Board"? I can see the tagline now: "Ever wanted to beat Michael Larson's record? Here's your chance!" There is a catch, of course. Unless the $100,000 spin is the very last spin of the game, which is pretty unlikely, that means there are going to be spins left over...spins which will most likely be passed to the player holding the $100,000+ bank, since there won't be any way to beat said player except by forcing him/her to hit a Whammy. If that happened, not only would that be heartbreaking to watch...it could actually kill the show if too many players lost the $100,000+ too often. On the other hand, there's always the possibility (miniscule as it may be) that while the $100,000+ player is being forced to take passed spins, he/she could hit the equally elusive "Double Your $$ + One Spin." The possibility of a $200,000+ winner would make watching "Press Your Luck" that much more exciting, even though that would be incredibly rare...and even getting the $100,000 spin wouldn't happen very often. But if "Wheel of Fortune" can pull it off, I don't see why "Press Your Luck" couldn't.

I'd appreciate hearing some other opinions on this. In the meantime, keep your eyes peeled for my next post....
Read more!

"1 vs. 100": Just as I Suspected

Greetings, folks:

I think "1 vs. 100" is a very interesting concept for a trivia show. A game where the object is to get a trivia question right in order to stay in the game, and then eliminating members of a 100-person "mob" who get the same question wrong for increasing amounts of money for the lone contestant. And if the lone contestant, or the "1", gets a question wrong, the remaining members of the mob split that contestant's money. Of course, the "hook" to this program is that if the "1" manages to keep getting questions right until all 100 mob members get one wrong...he/she wins $1,000,000.

Of course, the odds that 100 people will miss a question before a single person does is incredibly small...and I'm sure NBC knew that when they decided to import this game from the Netherlands. In order for any "1" contestant to win the $1,000,000, not only does that contestant have to be courageous enough to continue playing without even seeing the question first; he/she must also be smart enough to answer every question correctly AND/OR lucky enough eliminate the 100-person mob very quickly, perhaps within 10 questions if possible. Needless to say, I wasn't at all surprised to see that while some came within 10 mob members of $1,000,000...none had the right combination of courage, brains, and luck to beat all 100. Then along came Jason Luna....

Jason definitely had the brains...he correctly answered 8 out of 9 questions without using any help. He definitely had the courage...he had no qualms about continuing to take on the mob after using up "Ask the Mob" and "Poll the Mob" on his 4th question ("In the Olympic Games, which is an official weightlifting event? Clean & Jerk, Grab & Thrust, Rub & Tug)...even as he had to risk $50,000 (twice), then $100,000 (twice), then $250,000. But the luck of this equation presented itself on question #9, which turned out to be the final question ("According to Hallmark, what is the biggest card-giving holiday of the year? Christmas, Mother's Day, Valentine's Day). There were 15 people left in the mob at this point. The odds that all 15 of the remaining members of this mob, especially considering they were smart enough to answer to first 8 questions correctly, has to be very small. Normally, it would probably take at least 2 or 3 more questions before all 15 of them missed one. However, out of all 15 members of the female mob, not one of them thought of Christmas as the biggest card-giving holiday. A statistical anomaly, to be sure...but it was that kind of luck that caused Jason to jump from $250,000 to $1,000,000 in just one question. In all probability, if he'd only made it to $500,000 on this question...he probably would have quit, and he would've been smart to do. As it was, however, he never had to worry about risking $500,000 at all. And so, Jason Luna had the necessary combination of brains, courage, and luck to beat all 100 members of the mob and win $1,000,000...just as I suspected it would take do so. Will this ever happen again? Maybe...but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. ;o)

Until next time....
Read more!

How Would I Change: "How Much is Enough?"

Hello, folks...and welcome to the first of what will be one of my regular features on this blog of mine: "How Would I Change"; in which I examine a game show, past or present, that I believe could use some changes. As an aspiring game show producer, I'm more than willing to put my brain to the hypothetical task of reviving a failed game show, or fixing it so that it doesn't fail...but it's doubtful I will get the chance. It's still fun to dream, I suppose....

My first target for this feature: "How Much is Enough?" This is GSN's latest game show project in which four players go through five rounds trying to decide when to stop a rapidly increasing or decreasing "Money Clock" in order to add that amount to their respective banks. The person who hits their signaling button with the highest amount of money, the "greediest" player of the group, gets nothing in the first four rounds. However, in the round where the Money Clock goes from $0 to $5,000, the player who locks in with the lowest amount of money (or the most "cautious" player), also gets nothing. The players each have their signaling devices behind their backs, so none of them can see who locks in or when. A player could try reading the faces of his/her opponents to guess when they've hit their respective buttons...but they could just as easily be trying to fake the other players out, so there's no reliable to way to know when a player has hit his/her button. Only the top two players can advance to the final face-off. Thus, players basically have to pick a number that they think will be, ideally, the second highest amount of the group...and hope that they're right, or at least that they're close enough to take at least second place after the regular game is over. The only thing everyone knows for sure is that none of the Money Clocks will ever be allowed to reach the maximum. This makes "How Much is Enough" not much more than a glorified guessing game.

However, this really doesn't have much to do with what I believe to be this game show's "fatal flaw"...something in the game that, if left unchecked, will eventually "kill" that game. While I don't like the fact that 3 out of every 4 players in this game get nothing, this doesn't automatically make it a bad game. The fatal flaw in "How Much is Enough?" can be found in the "final face-off." You see, the winner is basically the person who stops the "Ultimate Money Clock" (the sum total of the top two players' respective banks) first. That's all there is to it. What's wrong with that? Well, while I imagine the GSN producers figured that the two contestants, who were both strategic enough and lucky enough to make it to the final face-off, would let the Ultimate Money Clock reach several thousand dollars before either of them considered hitting their respective buzzers. However, there's nothing in the rules that says either of them have to. In fact, there's no minimum at all. This means that a player could, either due to fear or the reasoning that his/her opponent is unlikely to expect it, stop the clock very early...maybe even as soon as it starts, if he/she wanted to. This game's flaw was actually exposed quite early...during the second week of episodes. After the Money Clock had started, I turned away to get a bowl of cereal...not expecting either of the players to "stop" before the clock had even reached $2,000. Surely enough, however...while my back was turned...I heard one of the two players shout "STOP!" Caught off guard, I quickly turned around to discover that this player, Terri, had stopped the money clock at $1,475. The audience booed. Terri's opponent had a look on her face that clearly said: "What the f---?" Corbin Bernsen had an understandably confused look on his face. But Terri? She was "hootin' and hollerin'", and very excited.

Why was Terri so excited? My guess is that she'd planned from the beginning to stop the Money Clock as soon as she did...knowing that it was unlikely that her opponent would expect her to stop so soon, and it worked. She played "cheap", and she was rewarded for it...even though I imagine it won't take long for Terri to spend that $1,475, if she hasn't already. Here's the problem: prospective contestants who see this show will look at situations like this (and there will be more), and will have it in their mind that they may be paired with a "cheap" player if he/she makes it to the final face-off. Thus, prospective contestants may feel it's not worth coming onto the show. Or...if they do decide to come to the show anyway, they may plan to go even lower than $1,475 in the final face-off...maybe stopping with only a few hundred dollars. Hey...the question is "How Much is Enough?", and a few hundred dollars may actually be enough for some people. The problem, however, is the audience (both in the studio and at home) may be in for regular instances of watching thousands of dollars change hands among the contestants...only to see the winning contestant walk away with several hundred dollars. That's about as anticlimactic as you can get...and if the studio audience was inclined to boo at $1,475, I can only imagine what the reaction will be if someone goes lower. I don't know how often this will actually happen...but it might be more than enough to lose the interest of the viewing audience.

So just how could I "fix" the game "How Much Is Enough?" Well, there are some things that just can't be fixed. You could put some sort of minimum on the Ultimate Money Clock, such as $1,000 or $2,000...but that could very well be enough for some players (like Terri), and they could simply hit the button as soon as the clock reaches said minimum. You could make the minimum a secret...then if one of the two players hits his/her button and that minimum is revealed to be higher than where the first player stopped, his/her opponent gets the secret minimum, and the player who locked in gets nothing. But if you do that, that defeats the whole concept of the game. For example, the secret minimum might be $3,000...and the first player who hits his/her button stops at $2,800. $2,800 was enough for that contestant, but since it was lower than the secret minimum...he/she should get nothing? That doesn't seem fair, does it? And, of course, if you leave the Ultimate Money Clock system the way it is...you leave the door open to the "undercutting" I described in the previous paragraph. So, even if given the opportunity, there's not much I could do for "How Much is Enough?" but watch it die its slow, torturous, impending death....

Until next time, folks....
Read more!

My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 3/3, Ending)

Hey, folks. I apologize for having so many posts for this one subject...I guess I just have a lot to say about it. Anyway, I shall reiterate the third of my basic standards for a game show, and continue by discussing "Weakest Link."

3) Contestants should not be allowed to eliminate each by any means other than good old-fashioned competition. Pretty self-explanatory, right? The point of a game show (at least in my opinion) is to determine which player, or players, is the best at a particular game on a particular day. The only legitimate way to prove who is truly the best is to let them compete...cleanly and fairly. Allowing contestants to decide who should stay and who should go by their own devices ultimately allows for the darker side of human nature to emerge...in which players make the easy choice as opposed to the honorable choice. Some examples of this include:

2) "Weakest Link": Once again, while I enjoyed the challenge of playing along as I tried to "bank" more money than the players on television (many times I was successful)...what I grew to hate was the part where contestants voted for the "Weakest Link." During the early rounds, it seemed to be fine...as contestants usually picked off the teammate who really did appear to be the weakest. Unfortunately, in the later rounds of the game, teammates would start deliberately picking off the stronger players...an unmistakable, but not unpredictable, gesture of cowardice. If the whole idea is to eliminate the weakest players on the team so they have a better chance at banking the most money possible...allowing the contestants to decide who to eliminate and when just doesn't work. Why not let the audience decide who the "Weakest Link" is? They're basically neutral, and don't have any reason to do anything but pick who they believe to be the weakest player...whereas the contestants always had a vested interest in eliminating potential competition.

Fortunately, there was always a penalty for eliminating the strongest players...banking significant sums of money usually became more difficult, particularly as the time for each round continued to decrease. However, the daily version of "Weakest Link" (hosted by George Gray) did something I believe killed the production of the show for good in the U.S....they eliminated the round that came after the final vote. This basically gave the contestants the ability to freely eliminate the person they were afraid of, without any consequences in the form of the final question round. George Gray even said this to the contestants before this final vote: "The question is...who do you want to face in the final round?" (sigh) All I can say is, you will never see any such contestant elimination process in one of my games. I hated watching it, and it would go against my conscience to allow it on any game show with my name on it.

And that, folks, is the basic philosophy that goes into the design of my game shows. I believe this will make all of my games more enjoyable for the contestants, and more fun for viewers to watch. I look forward to showing you all the best ideas I can come up with. Until next time....
Read more!

My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 3/3, Beginning)

And now, finally, here is the third of the basic principles I prefer to follow when working on a new game show project:

3) Contestants should not be allowed to eliminate each by any means other than good old-fashioned competition. Pretty self-explanatory, right? The point of a game show (at least in my opinion) is to determine which player, or players, is the best at a particular game on a particular day. The only legitimate way to prove who is truly the best is to let them compete...cleanly and fairly. Allowing contestants to decide who should stay and who should go by their own devices ultimately allows for the darker side of human nature to emerge...in which players make the easy choice as opposed to the honorable choice. Some examples of this include:

1) "Greed": What always bothered me about Greed was the "Terminator", which allowed a random member of the group to attempt to steal another group member's share of the potential winnings for a guaranteed $10,000...which the group member almost invariably took advantage of, which is why the show's producers eventually had to stop referring to them as a "team." Why do the players do it? It seems logical that a group would stand a better chance of answering the increasingly difficult four-part questions with more brains working together on them. Also, every player who auditions to be a contestant on Greed is there for the same reason: they want (or in some cases, need) to win a significant sum of money. No one person is less deserving of this opportunity than another, so there's no real reason to deprive them of that chance just to enrich one's self. But that's the point, isn't it? A person who chooses to take that $10,000 can only be thinking of one of two things: (1) if the group goes on to answer the question correctly, that player will end up with at least twice as much money as all of the other participants, (2) if the group goes on to answer the question incorrectly, and/or the player ends up losing the Terminator...at least that person has the guaranteed $10,000, even if all of the other group members end up with nothing. Either way, the only reason why anyone would use the Terminator is if that player is thinking only of his/herself...and couldn't care less about any of the other group members he/she is supposed to be joining forces with. Basically, it's selfishness...and it's a human trait that no game show should ever cater to. While I personally enjoyed the challenge of the four-part multiple-choice questions, I hated watching people use the Terminator practically every time...knowing exactly why they did it. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons "Greed" went off the air after only one season. I certainly can't say I'm sorry....

(sigh) Looks like this post is getting very long. I have much more to say on this topic, so stay tuned for my next post where I hope to finish this without having to divide what's left into two more posts....
Read more!

My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 2/3)

Hello again:

As promised, here is part 2 of my design philosophy for game shows:

2) The potential "reward" in any game should always be equal to or greater than the "risk" taken to win that reward. If this is not possible for whatever reason, it should at least be close. It doesn't make sense to me to have a game where a contestant has to put more money on the line than that contestant hopes to gain by taking said risk. For example, a group of contestants who played the game show "Greed" would have to risk losing $50,000 to reach the $75,000 level, and then $75,000 to reach $100,000...risking $50,000 to gain $25,000 and $75,000 to gain another $25,000, respectively. In the U.S. version of "Weakest Link" with Anne Robinson, a contestant who chose to answer a question instead of "banking" could end up having to risk losing $50,000 to reach $75,000, or $75,000 to reach the $125,000 target...risking $50,000 to gain $25,000 and $75,000 to gain $50,000, respectively. This doesn't seem very equitable, does it? They don't even do that to players in Las Vegas!

In my game "Try Your Luck", the potential reward is always greater than the risk. For example, the contestant who made $7,300 before taking the risk to reach $14,000 had to risk $5,900 ($7,300 - $1,400 minimum) to gain $6,700 ($14,000 maximum - $7,300). The only case where the risk outweighed the reward was in my first episode of "Try Your Luck", before I added "+1's" to the game. A contestant had made $4,600 with 8 picks...which translates to an $800 minimum for a potential loss of $3,800, and an $8,000 maximum for a potential gain of only $3,400. A risk of $3,800 is greater than the reward of $3,400, but at least it's close. Incidentally, this contestant decided to play it safe and keep the $4,600. A relatively good choice, because he would have dropped to $4,000 if he had "tried his luck." But it would only have been a difference of $600, so....

Coming up next...Part 3!
Read more!

My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 1/3)

Greetings, folks:

I'd like to share with you some basic standards that I keep in mind whenever I design a new game show. If you watch "Jackpot Trivia Bowl" and "Try Your Luck", you'll see that I follow these standards closely, where applicable. This was originally going to one post...but considering how much explanation is involved, I decided to make a series of it. Here's Part 1:

1) No contestant who plays one of my games, unless he/she completely blows it, will go home with nothing. In some cases, what a contestant gets may not be much, but it will be something. The reason I do this is to make sure the contestants don't feel as though they wasted their time appearing on a game show, particularly considering the general limits on game show appearances: in most cases, a contestant can't qualify for a game show if he/she has appeared or will appear on another game show within a year; and he/she can't appear on more than 3 game shows within a 10-year period. Thus, I think it's important to do my best to make it worth the contestant's while.

In "Jackpot Trivia Bowl", there is no penalty for missing a question...though a contestant does have to give back the money (if this were real money) he/she has won if said contestant chooses to "Reset" the game and start over. A contestant can only end up with nothing in "Jackpot Trivia Bowl" if he/she misses the very first question after resetting the game...though I do my best to make the first 3 questions easy enough to prevent that from happening. In "Try Your Luck", even when a contestant decides to take the risk and ends up getting burned, he/she still earns the minimum of $100 for every pick earned. In two such cases on my show, this translated to $1,400 and $2,000...neither of which is bad, even though they were nowhere near the $14,000 and $20,000 each respective contestant was playing for.

Stay tuned for Part 2!
Read more!

Welcome to the MMW Game Show Blog!

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the MMW Game Show Blog! In this blog, I will post information about the game show projects I'm working on; the progress I've made toward getting them produced; and my comments and opinions about game shows I've watched, past and present. If you're interested in seeing any of the games that I've produced for "BuckeyeTV", Ohio State University's student TV station; you can find the scheduled listing in the "About Me" section of this blog. Please feel free to let me know what you think, as I am always looking for feedback. You may also respond to my opinions about the game shows I discuss throughout this blog, if you wish. In the meantime...thanks for visiting, and please join us again on The MMW Game Show Blog! Bye-bye!
Read more!