"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!