GEN - Jeopardy!

Haiku-Review:

wagers of knowledge,
posing questions to answers -
really, a haiku?

Additional Comments:

Seriously though, is there any reason to write anything about this game? Jeopardy is Jeopardy is Jeopardy is Jeopardy, no matter the format or trivial differences found therein, except for Super Jeopardy. Ok, I'll concede that it's Jeopardy, but come on GameTek, since when does Jeopardy have four players? Granted, I'm unfamiliar with the show's pre-Trebek era, circa '64-75 and/or '78-'79, but that's neither here nor there. Besides, why toy with an already proven format? And this goes for any version of Jeopardy.

Now, I was chatting with a couple friends over the prospect of "finishing" Jeopardy and doing a write-up. The whole idea is asinine, but already knowing my eclectic list of games, I felt it only just to push my way into gaming's left field, especially after something as epic as Ocarina of Time. (Hmm, perhaps I should in turn follow this up with Hatris on the NES.) On top of that, can one really "finish" Jeopardy? I suppose a winning round is all you need. Then again, what of the 100% completion status? It feels like the Burger Time scenario all over again, or my far from fruitful Crystal Castles venture - damn you, 2600 and your many modes! With countless clues and categories, I could likely spend the equivalency of a real Jeopardy season until I've physically witnessed and answered, er...questioned every clue. Therefore it was time to come up with a compromise once again, much like the unbeatable titles of the points-based era. The most logical solution was to utilize the pre-2003 champions' ruling in which the champion would be retired after five consecutive victories. Not only does this tie in directly with the televised version of the game show, but it places a fair enough limiter to keep the game enjoyable long enough without becoming instantly stale by consistently repeating categories. Ha! Guess the joke's on me. I still had the pleasure of answering the same damn five clues within the Admirals category in six out of my seven games. Yes, I get it, the answers are: Christopher Columbus, John Paul Jones, Richard Byrd, George Dewey, and Hyman Rickover. I now have five more menial tidbits of information about historic admirals drilled deeper into my memory than I've ever cared to acknowledge. Now please, for the love of god, give me some different categories! Other culprits of repetition included the 1930's, Hunting, and Rocks & Minerals. (Insert gun-to-head emoticon here.) And the only reason I had to play seven games as opposed to a quick five, you may ask? Simply put, I wagered a large amount of money on a Daily Double during my second game and foolishly believed that a clover and a shamrock are one in the same. Son of a bitch! Wait a minute, they are the same!!!!

Interestingly, and most definitely sad to admit, I read various Jeopardy reviews posted around the net - namely for those titles that appeared on the various 8 and 16-bit systems. I did so out of curiosity's sake more than anything. After all, as I already wondered, what does one write about? A lot of them complained about the most incredibly mundane details, which I'll be the first to admit that I do that myself, but decrying the staleness of the white-on-blue clue screens or the limited avatar selection is a bit silly given what were dealing with here as a game. Pissing and moaning over the quality of a given answer though, that's another matter entirely. Again, a clover and a shamrock are the same fucking thing!!!

Honestly, there's nothing that takes away from the premise of the game. As long as it has two rounds of six categories with five clues each with increasing wager amounts as well as a single-shot final round and you're having to provide answers in question form to clues provided, then you're playing Jeopardy. SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy is still Jeopardy. Sixth grade science class Jeopardy is still Jeopardy. It's all Jeopardy. The integrity of the game may be somewhat lost in translation along the way, but it's still the same game at its core, much like the copious amounts of Monopoly's that flood the touristy gift shops of the world.

Ah! But there is a "mundane" detail that I wish to rail. Why, oh why, does the computer insist on attempting every clue - and not just one, but both computer controlled players. This needlessly drags a game out for far too long. Add to that, they don't bother ringing in until the timer hits zero. Talk about head-pounding aggravation, here it is in all its torturous glory. It doesn't only lead to a prolonged game; it also leads to a fairly well assured situation of a two-participant Final Jeopardy. Six out of my seven games, one of the computer players ended up in the negative early on and only made things worse as the game progressed as they felt the need to answer everything they possibly could whether they knew the answer or not. I suppose I shouldn't complain - easier victory for me - but it really takes away from the whole idea of gambling away your knowledge on 50's TV, Famous Baseball Quotes, or 17th Century British Naval Officers. Ok, maybe I made those last two up, but still.

Final Jeopardy:

It's the number of occurrences that Jeopardy's namesake appears within its post entire.

Rating: 2.5 shamrocks out of 5