Would it help if you stood beside you while you thought, and waved my arms idiotically? As if extracting the answer physically from the depths of your memory?
No? Hmm.
I like the way you think! Looking at his Wikipedia page, he might be half interesting if he would shut the fuck up once in a while. But man, he does make me want to stick my hand in the screen and slap him!
I don’t know about watching the show weekly but if they did one of these ‘events’ like once a quarter or twice a year or something, I would definitely tune in.
My impression is that the game has been engineered so that strong players will have the longest possible run and won’t be eliminated quickly. Limiting the role of the challenger helps to protect the principal player.
The host makes a big deal of repeating the “three wrongs in a row and you’re GONE!” catchphrase, but they didn’t even get to two wrongs very often. Once a player has a wrong answer on the board, he/she can shift to an easier category to erase it. Allowing players ten seconds to spit out guesses (while the challenger stands there silently) further weights the game in their favor.
Mark Burnett is listed as one of the co-creators of the show, and he’s probably learned from his other productions (like Survivor) that it’s better for ratings to keep good players around as long as possible to build their popularity.
I disagree about the difficulty of the questions; I find most of them quite easy. But the trick is to be reasonably knowledgeable in ALL categories. All you need is one or two categories in which you have little knowledge . . . and you’re GONE!
I gave it three episode but the insufferable host was just too much for me.
I also have to retroactively roll my eyes out of my head regarding the introduction in episode one bragging about “No second chances, no lifelines.” Um, yeah, bullshit. WWTBAM was way more rigid in their rules. First, YOU had to choose what your final answer was, you couldn’t just spit out 20 different ones hoping to luck into the correct one.
But worse, no second chances? Seriously? The founding principal of this game is second chances. You get second (and third and fourth and fifth etc…) chances every single question due to the structure of spamming guesses for ten seconds, but even worse, you explicitly get two strikes in a row before you can even be eliminated. Unless they meant “no second chances, because here you get a third chance”?
Plus in WWTBAM you only get three lifelines per game. In 500 Questions you get a second and third chance every single time you get something wrong.
Which reminds me of my final complaint: The tortured gymnastics to avoid saying “strike” drove me up a wall. Three “wrongs”? Ugh.
I agree; I thought many of the questions were ludicrously easy, and I’m definitely no genius. By contrast, watching Jeopardy makes me feel like an idiot.
My favorite element of the show is that the challenger selects the category after the player makes two consecutive errors. As you say, the trick is to have broad knowledge. The challenger has plenty of time, while standing idle at the other podium, to figure out the player’s strengths and weaknesses.
For a couple of days I had the urge to bellow “YOU HAVE A WRONG ON THE BAWWD!” to random strangers. Either Quest toned down his delivery after the first few episodes, or I started tuning it out (probably the latter).
I agree; the hype about how this is “the toughest game ever devised” is silly. I enjoyed it, but it isn’t even close to the toughest. A truly tough game would be far less forgiving of error; 500 Questions is full of cushions and backstops to protect players from their own mistakes.
I think Mark Burnett took note of the popularity of Ken Jennings and “Jeopardy Julia,” and set out to build a show that would create similar celebrity know-it-alls.