New Show - Cheat - (Netflix)

I don’t think that I’ve ever watched a quiz show on Netflix before. I don’t know if Netflix have made a quiz show before. Earlier today I watched an edition of “Cheat”, their new quiz presented by Danny Dyer and Ellie Taylor. I think it’s important to make the point that it is a Netflix show, because that brings certain expectations with it. Let’s be honest, it would be unfair to expect that they are going to make a highbrow, serious quiz show. No, this is entertainment, and it's a game. So I’ll try to judge it as such.

The show works like this. We start with four contestants. They are asked questions in turn, to which they have to give a correct answer. If they don’t know the answer they can push the red button in front of them, cunningly concealed so that the other contestants can’t see them do it. This reveals the correct answer to them. Correct answers add money to the prize fund. However the other contestants can each call out the others for cheating. Got that? Okay. After each has been asked four questions, money is removed for each time a contestant cheated. The complicating factor is that whichever of the four contestants has the best accuracy rate for calling out others automatically goes through to the next round. They can also eliminate another player. If the player cheated, let’s say, three times, then money for each of those three cheats is returned to the prize fund.

The game continues with three players. The second round is much like the first. Four more questions face each contestant. However this time, after the other contestants have either buzzed in to accuse, or not, then it is instantly revealed whether the contestant cheated or not. At the end of the round, then, the viewer has a pretty good idea about who will have been the most accurate cheat spotter. And as before, the most accurate goes through to the next round, the final, and can eliminate either of the other two contestants. Essentially this boils down to a choice between eliminating the biggest cheat and bumping up the prize fund, or eliminating the stronger player and not putting so much back into the prize pot.

For the final then, the gameplay is essentially sudden death. The contestants face questions in turn. If they get the answer wrong, they are out. If they cheat and are challenged correctly, they are out. If they don’t cheat, and are incorrectly challenged, they win. So, basically, it pays to observe the opposition closely so that you have a good idea what your opponent is likely to know. That’s the game, and being on Netflix if you want to watch the next edition straight afterwards, you go for it.

You know, there’s quiz shows I’d like to play in, and there’s quiz shows I like to watch. There’s a lot of shows which are both, but there are also a few that I’d watch, but I wouldn’t want to play in. This isn’t one of those. I wouldn’t like to play in it, and I don’t see myself wanting to watch it again. In any quiz show it is not guaranteed that the person with the best general knowledge will win. That’s fair enough, but in “Cheat” it seems that your level of general knowledge is somewhat incidental. It’s all about how well you can spot other people cheating. And I don’t kid myself that my ability to judge people is anything out of the ordinary. It’s a valid game but it’s not a game that I really want to play.

There’s something I’m not clear about either, and that’s the whole concept of the most accurate cheat spotter. It isn’t explained just what measure they use to determine this. I know that it isn’t just about the number of correct buzzes – in the second round Danny Dyer gleefully tells contestants who’ve made an incorrect accusation ‘you’ve ‘armed yer accuracy rate there, mate’  or words to that effect. But is it simply a case of using the percentage of accusations that you make that are correct? But if it is, then the thing would be that if your first buzz in round two is correct, then just stick. Don’t buzz again and you’ve got a 100 percent accuracy rate. It would just be interesting to know exactly how they work it out, bearing in mind that accuracy in accusations is such a crucial part of the game mechanics.

There’s another thing I find a bit strange about this show. Make no mistake, this is Danny Dyer’s show. I’m not going to say anything critical about Danny Dyer – he is what he is, he knows his own brand and he knows his own appeal. If he’s not your cup of tea then don’t watch the show because you won’t like it. But . . . why have Ellie Taylor on the show as well if all you’re going to ask her to do is read out the questions? She’s a fine presenter in her own right and I’m sorry, but her talents seem almost totally wasted in this. It’s not as if she gets any meaningful opportunity to indulge in any useful presenter & sidekick banter of the kind we’ve seen in a number of shows across the years. I don’t get it.

To use a familiar refrain, I do think that “Cheat” does what it does pretty well. There’s a decent amount of cash to be won, the presentation is fairly slick, and it doesn’t drag. But at the end of the day, I don’t like what it does that much. The questions are too simple to interest me much, and the cheat/no cheat aspect doesn’t interest me. You may feel differently.