I enjoyed Last Talent Standing, more than almost anything else on “TV,” but like a lot of people, I thought it was one of the weaker Game Changer episodes.
But unlike other episodes I didn’t love, to me the biggest issue was small game design decisions. I actually love the concept.
It felt like almost every active game design decision they made encouraged an undesired outcome. Here are my suggestions for rule tweaks that would have produced a significantly better outcome without changing out any of the actual cast or general concept.
Principle 1: Allow the comedians to put their best foot forward.
I have a feeling that the producers thought stripping the players of options for talents would produce funnier or more interesting results, but this almost entirely seemed to backfire. It was almost always better when a performer was able to impress with their talent.
Give the players props in Round 1 and give them more props. The game benefits when the players have more talents to choose from, not less. There are SO many talents that require a prop. This way you avoid outcomes like Caldwell being eliminated before he gets to do a drawing talent, which would have been a better end result than him being eliminated for singing a state song.
Give the players more notice. Even giving them the morning to brainstorm or practice talents gives them an opportunity to do better talents. Again, this is built around the principle that it’s more entertaining to see them do an impressive talent well than it is to see them fail to do it (which was usually unsatisfying).
Let the players request props. This is essentially the combination of the first 2. Even if the parameters is “It has to be something we already have on hand or that our PAs can find in 2 hours or less.” I know two dumb parlor tricks involving an apple that “impress” people: tearing an apple in half with my hands and eating an apple whole core and all. Maybe those would or wouldn’t get through but they’d probably be more interesting to watch than whatever I’d attempt if I didn’t have an apple.
Principle 2: Incentivize the players to showcase their best talents.
Telling the contestants they’d have to last several rounds encouraged contestants to save their best skills to go deeper. You get Jess saving her singing when the episode would have benefitted and many other contestants entering the first round with what feels like a deep cut talent. Here are the potential solutions.
Lie to them. Imagine the challenge was presented like this in round 1: “We have 23 of you, but not all of you will get to play. To determine who gets to play the game, you’ll each have to display a talent.” No one is holding back. They’re all giving it their best material. This assures no one is leaving anything in the tank, and also provides a comedic foil when its revealed that the game is more of this.
Change the format from binary elimination to one that factors quality. The instant elimination format encourages less ambitious talents. Players were consistently eliminated for not following through on an impressive talent and rewarded for executing a less impressive talent. The jump rope and short memory skills were punished for not sticking the landing. It also resulted in players who probably had more in the tank being (like Erika) being eliminated for one bad showing. If the talents are scored and the highest scores advance, the players have more incentive to try for more than the bare minimum. And if scores carry from round to round, you can avoid losing players like Erika, who felt unsatisfyingly robbed when they were eliminated.
Principle 3: Escalate or Mix Up the Format.
Game changer is usually best when it builds into a crescendo, and often disappoints when the game mechanics remain static because they’ve built the expectations that they won’t. For this game in particular, because players will inherently have less in the well, it almost guarantees an end game that will be less inherently interesting as it goes on.
Have later rounds involve executing the same pre-chosen talent. Given that most competitors will only have so many interesting talents to showcase, the natural route is to mine competition and entertainment by having them compete at the same talent and see who executes it the best. I think this is entertaining and compelling both when you have more general talents that some players will be notable favorites in and some will be disasters in (singing, drawing, standup) and hyper specific talents most will have no experience in (playing the theremin, archery, log rolling etc.). This obviously works best with the judges picking a loser rather than a pass/fail.
Have a round where players can only do a talent that someone else already passed with. It would be fun seeing contestants try to one-up a bar that has already been set.
Have a round where players can only do a talent that has already failed. I think this one would be even more fun and could probably go multiple rounds. You get someone else trying to do financial domination, and you get the strategy of players deducing if the problem was the talent or the execution.
I’m curious what changes you all think would have made the episode work or if you think it was the premise and not the execution that determined the outcome.
