Duel or WWTBAM?

Keeping the 15 question format would've resulted at least one person not making to the hotseat last night. While the 8th question is designed that those who guess on a "free go" don't get a massive reward "on a fluke".

Didn't think the accelerator thing worked last night after the second Duel.


Firstly, the graphics were ugly compared to the rest of the package.


More importantly though it took both the dilemma and the risk out of the situation. The whole premise of the show is one wrong answer and you're out - but with this twist they can now get this question wrong and lose nothing.


As I said before they should get the option to just go straight into the third Duel with no cash, or take a bonus question against the accelerator, but risk being eliminated with nothing if they fail to cover the correct answer with one of their three (or less) chips.

I'm sure most would then still take the question - but the risk of them being eliminated adds that necessary bit of jeopardy, meaning if they do risk it all on one answer for the full £10k, they are eliminated if they get it wrong.

I've tried watching this three times, and I still can't work out the bloody rules.

Well it's not that complicated.


Each player begins with ten chips with which they answer questions.

Each multiple choice question has 4 possible answers.

To continue in the game, players must cover the correct answer. However, they can cover as many answers as they like if they have the chips to do so - but lose the chips placed on any incorrect answers, with each chip adding £1000 to the jackpot.

The chip on the correct answer is returned to the player - and if the correct answer is not covered, the player is out and their opponent wins the duel. If both players fail to cover the correct answer, they are both eliminated.

In addition, each player has 2 "accelerators" which they can use at any time to force their opponent to answer within 7 seconds.


Winner stays on, after the second and third duel a player can win cash, while after the fourth they win the jackpot.

This is exactly why Duel hasn't taken off. The rules *are* too complicated for a primetime game show that has hardly been on for a month.

If you think back to other game shows that had sophisticated rules, like Winner Takes All or 3-2-1, the whole of the first series and probably most of the second would have the presenter remind the viewers of the rules at each stage, based on the premise that viewers would need reminding, or explaining in case they haven't seen it before or not enough times to work it out through a process of elimination. You can't see how all the rules work if you don't get to see all the situations that give rise to the invokation of those rules.

The problem with Duel has been that if, like me, you missed the first couple of shows, you start watching from the third show and you just hear things like "well, this is interesting. We haven't ever had this situation before". As if the show has been on for 7 years and everyone in the country has grown used to the rules. When it hasn't.

There is too much 'News 24' style analysis going on between each play and too many epithets based on 'this is interesting' with not much explanation as to why 'this is interesting'. This leaves the viewer who missed the very quick explanation back in Show 1 trying to fathom the rules over the course of the rest of the show. All far too taxing, to be honest.

The thing with Millionaire is that it's the simplest concept possible. You get a question right, you win money. You get a question wrong, and you're out.

Game shows don't all have to be that simple, but just like the aforementioned gameshows of old, you need to give viewers time to get used to the format, before you start acting as if we all know why 'this is interesting' whenever someone plays a certain tactic.

I think also people tend to get the feeling that such a show is a 'closed club', a clique if you will, and think "oh well, I can't be bothered trying to gatecrash into their party. They've already got all the guests they want". Overfamiliarising a format too early on can alienate new viewers, especially if the show itself is new. People won't feel 'welcomed' into it. This is what the *host* of a show's job used to be. To make new viewers, aswell as existing viewers, feel 'welcomed' into the party, to allay any fears of inadequacy at not understanding the modus operandi of that show's 'world'. However, if you imply to viewers "well, if you don't understand it, tough" - then those viewers will let their remote fingers do the walking.

Well I credited posters here with more intelligence - you really think it's complicated?


I think it's one of the simplest formats around to be honest and with far simpler rules than the likes of Deal or No Deal or the numerous copy cat game shows since.


Head to head, multiple choice questions - give a wrong answer and you're out. The only move away perhaps from a traditional game show is that players have the option to give more than one answer, or indeed all the answers - but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what's going on, and the same goes for the accelerator too.

You only need to watch for a few minutes to get the basic idea.

I agree with Mark over the dangers of an 'exclusive club' feel to quiz and game shows. It's for exactly that reason that I can't abide A Question of Sport and Deal or no Deal. That said, I think Duel is fairly accessible and I do like the format.

Although the rules are easy to understand, the show hasn't helped explaining the rules in depth for new viewers. On the first show we saw Nick Hancock going through the motions but since then has done a brief run through. Golden Balls has been running for nine months but Jasper Carrott still has the time to explain the rules on each show, even down to the main details with Split/Steal.

The show also suffers from the lack of cash prize opportunity/giveaway. The format is built that you have to win two duels to guarantee a shot to win something but in TV land that could take 30 mins for someone who could win £10,000 on primetime. The Vault was the last primetime show to offer a large rollover jackpot, although it rolled over each week there were still chances to win cash on the show throughout the hour.

[quote="travisp"]Although the rules are easy to understand, the show hasn't helped explaining the rules in depth for new viewers. On the first show we saw Nick Hancock going through the motions but since then has done a brief run through. Golden Balls has been running for nine months but Jasper Carrott still has the time to explain the rules on each show, even down to the main details with Split/Steal.[quote]

Goldenballs is aimed at the lowest common denominator though - i.e. those who watch Goldenballs.

Duel is a bit more sophisticated than that and doesn't alienate the existing viewers (both of us) by spoonfeeding us the rules every five minutes. The rules are explained at the beginning of each show and at the beginning of each Duel, which is more than enough.




Fair point, but not quite sure how they could incorporate it. Perhaps if the accelerator is used the player could win £1000 for every chip wasted by their opponent - or at the end of each Duel players get a cash amount for any remaining chip or something.

To me though the game isn't about the money like Millionaire - it's about the head to head battles and winning the game, rather than the cash.

OK so what's the best way to play? Use up your chips quickly covering all right and wrong answers, or use them sparingly on ones you're sure of and save them for later questions you might not know?

Goldenballs - still don't get the rules. Even when Jasper Carrot explains them (quite verbosely) I have no idea what they are.

Duel is less complicated, but needs explanation. It took me one programme to understand Deal or No Deal , as that is a very simple game, as is Millionaire which you can understand without thinking.