Good to see people on here interested in devising new formats, although on the other hand its sad that many people appear to be making the same mistakes time and again.
Even if a format is well explained and seemingly \"do-able\", that's still only the start of your troubles. For example, and apologies in advance to the creator, let me take Loogaroo's Strikeout (
http://www.loogslair.com/gameshow/strikout.html). I really like the way that Strikeout is explained and presented and, in theory, it looks like a workable show.
However, there are some bugs that I can forsee. One of them is that potentially the entire first three rounds could last just seven questions. Yes, it's unlikely but you need a plan B. You can always cut a show short, but it's very difficult to stretch it long.
Striekout would also greatly benefit from a running order. I'm convinced that many paper formats would unravel as soon as you tried to work out the numbers for how long each segment would run for. It's surprising what little proportion of an overall programme is actually taken up with the game play itself (due to advertising time pressures, this may not be the case in the US)
Some sample questions would help in this format and many many others I've read. Questions aren't just questions. They could have different phrasing, different topics, different difficulties, different formats and test different skills. What's going to make your questions different from any others? Why not devise a few to give people the right idea?
I also wonder \"where's the funny?\" In the first few rounds, contestants are locking in answers to an A/B/C board. We're not hearing their inner thoughts, their anxiety of getting the answer wrong, or any form of tactics. Programmes such as 100% (sort-of ripped off by Inquizition in the US) work purely because they are so stripped down and the emphasis is on play-along. Having 2-man teams in game shows is very useful because there's much better potential for conflict, argument and talking through the question. Games involving single people need to be much faster to keep up the play-along-at-home aspect.
Although Loog's format doesn't fall into this trap, there are many, many formats from the US that I've seen which are beyond anal in the numbers and figures department. For example, why not say \"they win a car\" rather than \"they win a car valued between $20,000 to $24,000\". I mean, surely the exact value of the prize will depend on who you pitch it to? And are you saying they should win a car just because that's what all the old US game shows used to do or is there a genuine point behind it?
I hope that's been of use. If you're serious about developing game shows, I've written a 50,000-word report on the subject, a link to which can be found in my .sig below.
Best wishes
David