Rating: 
Summary: Jeopardy 2003 A Rip-Off
Review: Jeopardy 2003 is a huge WASTE OF MONEY! First of all, the program is flawed because it periodically shuts down. And it will do so in the middle of a game, so be forewarned. Second, all of the questions are exactly the same as the Jeopardy 1st edition game! I thought I was buying a whole new, fun Jeopardy game (because after much play on the 1st edition, my family and I had memorized most of the answers). Instead, I got essentially the same thing as I already owned, only the computerized Alex doesn't have a mustache this time. Furthermore, the "Tournament of Champions"...totally bogus. It is mostly questions from the regular Jeopardy rounds mixed up to make you think they are the more difficult T.O.C. questions. Overall, this game gets a big fat ZERO with me. The price I paid was NOT well worth it for what I received. Alex and Merv should have thought twice before putting their names on this game...
Rating:
Summary: Jeopardy 2003 A Rip-Off
Review: Jeopardy 2003 is a huge WASTE OF MONEY! First of all, the program is flawed because it periodically shuts down. And it will do so in the middle of a game, so be forewarned. Second, all of the questions are exactly the same as the Jeopardy 1st edition game! I thought I was buying a whole new, fun Jeopardy game (because after much play on the 1st edition, my family and I had memorized most of the answers). Instead, I got essentially the same thing as I already owned, only the computerized Alex doesn't have a mustache this time. Furthermore, the "Tournament of Champions"...totally bogus. It is mostly questions from the regular Jeopardy rounds mixed up to make you think they are the more difficult T.O.C. questions. Overall, this game gets a big fat ZERO with me. The price I paid was NOT well worth it for what I received. Alex and Merv should have thought twice before putting their names on this game...
Rating: 
Summary: It's almost the same as Jeopardy! 2nd Edition
Review: Jeopardy! 2003 is a good game, but if you already own Jeopardy! 2nd edition, I'd think before picking it up. New things it includes are; Alex's new face-lift, the new dollar amounts, some new graphics, and new multi-player assignment. Interface, most graphics and sounds are from Jeopardy! 2nd edition, so don't expect "all new game-play". For the price, pick it up, it's not that bad.Pros:
5,200 New Answers
New Alex Videos
New Dollar Amounts Cons:
Too much like 2nd Edition
Rating: 
Summary: Read the directions
Review: Mr. "Gamer" from Forest Hills should read the comments from
"Theodore John Illenberg (see more about me)" to see why
he (gamer) couldn't get answers because he was "playing with
himself" while traveling; NOT a good idea (like cell-phones and
booze and driving) ;>)
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, yet, mired in extensive glitches.
Review: Review of Jeopardy 2003:
It would be a fair evaluation to contend that I was provided with precisely what which I had expected from this particular game- the same fundamental gaming structure as the television series "Jeopardy" provides. After all, the underlying premise of the computer program has already been established by the actual game, and therefore, the function of the game is simply to cultivate an environment in which such a premise is reflected and made accessible to the user. However, what I was not anticipating was the tremendously significant, and unfortunate technical glitches and apparent programming errors this game provided.
First of all, the most basic technical functions- this game must be run from the supplied CD-ROM at all instances of game play, which results in occasionally awkward slow-down time. Answers are to be typed out, of course, but the program is highly sensitive to spelling. You are provided with several gaming options, which include a standard game, a solo game, and a Tournament of Champions, which you are required to qualify for. There is also a contestant exam for those who are interested. Visually, this game is by no means stunning, although there are a comprehensive amount of comparatively lengthy video clips, still footage, and numerous video clips of Alex Trebek either emphatically congratulating you on a correct answer, or expressing concentrated interest in those incorrect replies.
There are comparatively limited gaming and configuration options, but even less character depth concerning the computer opponents. Not only are the computer opponents provided with no name (aside from Player 2, Player 3, etc.), but have only two voices. This by no means creates anything by way of a problematic gaming element, but significantly reduces the degree of personal engagement identified with the standardized gaming configuration. There is no online interface, enabling you to engage in the game online, so, you're confined to the gaming options provided by the game.
While the game seems correctly advertise over 5,200 questions, this line if information can be misleading. Indeed, there are an extensive number of questions, but that does not designate that you will not encounter the same questions and categories more frequently than anticipated. I noticed the same categories and questions appearing only a few weeks after having purchased it, so the questions seem to be randomly selected from an established 5,200. Also, Alex Trebek, while he reads the categories and provides commentary concerning the answers provided by the participants, does not read the individual questions themselves. Johnny Gilbert is assigned with the task of question reading to the user, and does a rather effective job at doing so.
Now, the problematic technical elements I mentioned are excusable in their own right, what I find completely unacceptable is the splintering problems they produce. The slow down time produced by the constant CD rom requirement results in a complete alteration of the timeframe allotted for question reading and answering. For example, the game will suddenly freeze right after the question has been read, and suddenly resumes play only after one of the computer participants has provided a response. Also, there are instances in which the game freezes during the point in which you're responding, only to, as usual, suddenly resume play with three or so seconds deducted from those you didn't even have the opportunity to use. Also, after continuous usage, the program would suddenly discontinue immediately prior to the onset of the "Double Jeopardy" round, requiring the user to restart the program.
There are a multitude of other glitches which are even more ridiculously unfortunate. Sometimes, the narrator of the question will read a question entirely different from the one provided on the screen. Therefore, the user is left to guess as to which question is to be responded to- the one asked, or the one visually presented. Other times, the narrator will stop in the middle of a question, without having read it to completion, only to have one of the computer participants respond unexpectedly. In other words, there are many times in which the question isn't even finished.
In some cases, these aforementioned glitches can be just laughable, such as when the narrator repeats the same question at the end of the round three or so times- even after having provided the user with the answer. The computer glitch results in constant repetition of the same question until either the user or the computer participant responds correctly. Another unfortunate glitch in an already extensively inept program. In another occasion, the answer to every question was "Where were"...and responding with "Where were" would yield another incorrect message only to be provided with the correct answer which read..."Where were".
Overall, however, I cannot rate this product as harshly as my comments may suggest. While the production of this game seemed rushed, and despite its numerous programming errors and technical glitches, as well as its dubiously frequent repetition, this game proves to be enjoyable. But this is not attributed to some remarkably unique or cleverly effective programming element or methodological approach, but rather, because the fundamental premise of the game 'Jeopardy' is enjoyable. To erode the enjoyment produced by this type of game required the investment of effort, and even bogging it down extensive clutter of infuriating technical glitches is insufficient. Therefore, I would recommend this game to anyone who already appreciates the Jeopardy premise, for that is sufficient to effectively eclipse the often-times erratic, unpredictable game play produced by way of comparatively extensive technical problems. It certainly delivers that which it projects.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, yet, mired in extensive glitches.
Review: Review of Jeopardy 2003: It would be a fair evaluation to contend that I was provided with precisely what which I had expected from this particular game- the same fundamental gaming structure as the television series "Jeopardy" provides. After all, the underlying premise of the computer program has already been established by the actual game, and therefore, the function of the game is simply to cultivate an environment in which such a premise is reflected and made accessible to the user. However, what I was not anticipating was the tremendously significant, and unfortunate technical glitches and apparent programming errors this game provided. First of all, the most basic technical functions- this game must be run from the supplied CD-ROM at all instances of game play, which results in occasionally awkward slow-down time. Answers are to be typed out, of course, but the program is highly sensitive to spelling. You are provided with several gaming options, which include a standard game, a solo game, and a Tournament of Champions, which you are required to qualify for. There is also a contestant exam for those who are interested. Visually, this game is by no means stunning, although there are a comprehensive amount of comparatively lengthy video clips, still footage, and numerous video clips of Alex Trebek either emphatically congratulating you on a correct answer, or expressing concentrated interest in those incorrect replies. There are comparatively limited gaming and configuration options, but even less character depth concerning the computer opponents. Not only are the computer opponents provided with no name (aside from Player 2, Player 3, etc.), but the two voices. This by no means creates anything by way of a problematic gaming element, but significantly reduces the degree of personal engagement identified with the standardized gaming configuration. There is no online interface, enabling you to engage in the game online, so, you're confined to the gaming options provided by the game. While the game seems correctly advertise over 5,200 questions, this line if information can be misleading. Indeed, there are an extensive number of questions, but that does not designate that you will not encounter the same questions and categories more frequently than anticipated. I noticed the same categories and questions appearing only a few weeks after having purchased it, so the questions seem to be randomly selected from an established 5,200. Also, Alex Trebek, while he reads the categories and provides commentary concerning the answers provided by the participants, does not read the individual questions themselves. Johnny Gilbert is assigned with the task of question reading to the user, and does a rather effective job at doing so. Now, the problematic technical elements I mentioned are excusable in their own right, what I find completely unacceptable is the splintering problems they produce. The slow down time produced by the constant CD rom requirement results in a complete alteration of the timeframe allotted for question reading and answering. For example, the game will suddenly freeze right after the question has been read, and suddenly resumes play only after one of the computer participants has provided a response. Also, there are instances in which the game freezes during the point in which you're responding, only to, as usual, suddenly resume play with three or so seconds deducted from those you didn't even have the opportunity to use. Also, after continuous usage, the program would suddenly discontinue immediately prior to the onset of the "Double Jeopardy" round, requiring the user to restart the program. There are a multitude of other glitches which are even more ridiculously unfortunate. Sometimes, the narrator of the question will read a question entirely different from the one provided on the screen. Therefore, the user is left to guess as to which question is to be responded to- the one asked, or the one visually presented. Other times, the narrator will stop in the middle of a question, without having read it to completion, only to have one of the computer participants respond unexpectedly. In other words, there are many times in which the question isn't even finished. In some cases, these aforementioned glitches can be just laughable, such as when the narrator repeats the same question at the end of the round three or so times- even after having provided the user with the answer. The computer glitch results in constant repetition of the same question until either the user or the computer participant responds correctly. Another unfortunate glitch in an already extensively inept program. In another embarrassing occasion, the answer to every question was "Where were"...and responding with "Where were" would yield another incorrect message only to be provided with the correct answer which read..."Where were". Overall, however, I cannot rate this product as harshly as my comments may suggest. While the production of this game seemed rushed, and despite its numerous programming errors and technical glitches, as well as its dubiously frequent repetition, this game proves to be enjoyable. But this is not attributed to some remarkably unique or cleverly effective programming element or methodological approach, but rather, because the fundamental premise of the game 'Jeopardy' is enjoyable. To erode the enjoyment produced by this type of game required the investment of effort, and even bogging it down extensive clutter of infuriating technical glitches is insufficient. Therefore, I would recommend this game to anyone who already appreciates the Jeopardy premise, for that is sufficient to effectively eclipse the often-times erratic, unpredictable game play produced by way of comparatively extensive technical problems. It certainly delivers that which it projects.
Rating:
Summary: Solo mode is practice?
Review: The "explanation" for why one doesn't get the correct answers in a solo game--that "solo mode is practice"--is simply unacceptable. One of the benefits of most computer games is that one can play a full-fledged game against a virtual opponent. It is unlikely, having learned this, that I will purchase this software.
However, I don't understand what Douglas Gardner's problem is with the Forest Hills commentator's playing while traveling--playing a game with the audio low or with headphones is not the same thing as yelling into a cellphone--so long as s/he's on public transit and not driving a car!
Rating: 
Summary: Not recommended
Review: There are many problems with this version of computer jeopardy. The interface is awkward-looking and doesn't come up to the TV version at all. It's difficult to buzz in on your computer keyboard and the worst thing is, they don't provide you with the real answers if you miss one. This is inexcusable and exhausting. Another irritating element is you *must* spell your answer correctly. Though the same claims you misspell your answer (as long as it's reasonably close to the actual spelling), this is simply untrue. A frustrating experience. It's actually more fun to do what I do: pretend you're an actual Jeopardy contestent and 5-time champion. I've gotten more pleasure from living vicariously than actually playing this computer game. There are too many glitches, too few perks to justify a purchase.
Rating:
Summary: Jeopardy 2003
Review: This game is sometimes called Jeopardy 3 but on the box it's called Jeopardy 2003. I was surprised, that in Solo Mode, you are not told the answers to the questions!
When you play with others or computer players, you are given the answers.
The graphics and sound are pretty good. My main complaint with the game is the lack of options. You can't even pick the resolution you want to play in. There are no graphic options at all! Everything is choosen for you. There are a few options having to do with gameplay, like buzz in time 1-3 Players and such. I like to pick my own options and settings, thats's why only three stars. Otherwise the game is fun.
It requires Direct X 8.1. System requirements are a minimum Pentium II 333Mhz but a Pentium III 500Mhz is recommended (32MB RAM for Win 98/ME/2000 but 64 for XP)and 200 MB Hard Drive Space. I also ordered Scrabble 2003 and Wheel Of Fortune 2003. I hope they have alot more options than Jeopardy 2003. M. Calcagno
Rating:
Summary: Jeopardy 2003
Review: This is the latest version of Jeopardy with the new dollar amounts and over 5,000 questions. You can play standard, solo or tournament of champions. Standard mode is the traditional three player game. Solo mode is practice, so therefore you do not get the anwers to the questions. In tournament mode you play with three human players, who have won at least 5 games or $75,000.
You can adjust the spelling tollerance and computer player difficulty as well as the buzz in time. You need to be carefull of the spelling. You need to check your answer over before submitting. There is some tollerance for similar answers but because it is a computer game and not the telivision game there is no human factor in determining if the answer is right. For example. I had a question on what happened on a certain date during the Korean War. The correct response (or what was acceptable) was "what is prisoners of war?" I typed in "Prisoner exchange". One time I typed in "Franklin Deleno Roosevelt", the accepted response was "F. Deleno Roosevelt". The answers were similar but I was considered wrong. Career statistics keeps track of your winnings , your strongest and weakest catagory as well as the number of corrrect and wrong answers. I just started playing the game, it is a good game. The graphics are good. The computer players have speaking voices in giving their responses.
|
