| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 5:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pie20spike wrote: | As this discussion has been getting towards, I believe the Russell debate boils down to the kind of game and show people WANT Survivor to be.
Some people watch it because its a very cleverly constructed game which is interesting to watch people play. They believe that, like every other game it should be possible to play it in a way that wins every time (obviously not the SAME way- you don't play Chess the same way every time but grandmasters can consistently and repeatdedly win). Thus really the jury element is a dramatic technicality- the best strategist should win. Other people believe that its more of a social experiance and involves elements of luck and people skills that extend beyond what you need to ensure you don't get voted off.
I ascribe to the former view, and, as someone whos repeatdedly tried to concieve of an almost unbeatable way to get to the end of the 39 days, I really liked Russell for doing just that.
His repeated failure to win has made me dislike the show, and decide to stop watching it, not because I believe he should have won the game of Survivor but because it highlighted to me that the way to win Survivor is not through an inteligent plan to 'beat the game' but (just like real life) by being a likeable enough person (or having unparrarelled physical prowess, or a mix).
I don't like the latter scenerio (above) because it DOES introduce luck into the game. No person could reach the end every time no matter how likeable they are (JT and Amanda are great examples). In direct response to the above post for the show I want to see then the jury would have to vote for the player who has played the ;best' during the 39 days, and there would be strigent criteria for determining this.
To sum up, I thought Survivor was a human version of a board or card game. It turns out that its pretty much like real life because players aren't willing to suspend morals (as you generally do in games- you don't feel guilty about winning, cheating aside) and the social element is much more heavily weighted than the strategic or physical elements. |
It has always been the latter though. Seriously, watch the earlier seasons and you'll see more focus on the social bonds between the people instead of "OMG STRATEGY BLINDSIGHTS!!!" The Russell debate boils down to who gets it and who doesn't. If you honestly think Survivor is supposed to be some sort of human chess game, then you really don't understand it. It's a social experiment, which is one of the first things said during the first episode of Borneo.
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pman5595
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 1543
Location: Wayzata High School
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Josseppe95 wrote: | | pie20spike wrote: | As this discussion has been getting towards, I believe the Russell debate boils down to the kind of game and show people WANT Survivor to be.
Some people watch it because its a very cleverly constructed game which is interesting to watch people play. They believe that, like every other game it should be possible to play it in a way that wins every time (obviously not the SAME way- you don't play Chess the same way every time but grandmasters can consistently and repeatdedly win). Thus really the jury element is a dramatic technicality- the best strategist should win. Other people believe that its more of a social experiance and involves elements of luck and people skills that extend beyond what you need to ensure you don't get voted off.
I ascribe to the former view, and, as someone whos repeatdedly tried to concieve of an almost unbeatable way to get to the end of the 39 days, I really liked Russell for doing just that.
His repeated failure to win has made me dislike the show, and decide to stop watching it, not because I believe he should have won the game of Survivor but because it highlighted to me that the way to win Survivor is not through an inteligent plan to 'beat the game' but (just like real life) by being a likeable enough person (or having unparrarelled physical prowess, or a mix).
I don't like the latter scenerio (above) because it DOES introduce luck into the game. No person could reach the end every time no matter how likeable they are (JT and Amanda are great examples). In direct response to the above post for the show I want to see then the jury would have to vote for the player who has played the ;best' during the 39 days, and there would be strigent criteria for determining this.
To sum up, I thought Survivor was a human version of a board or card game. It turns out that its pretty much like real life because players aren't willing to suspend morals (as you generally do in games- you don't feel guilty about winning, cheating aside) and the social element is much more heavily weighted than the strategic or physical elements. |
It has always been the latter though. Seriously, watch the earlier seasons and you'll see more focus on the social bonds between the people instead of "OMG STRATEGY BLINDSIGHTS!!!" The Russell debate boils down to who gets it and who doesn't. If you honestly think Survivor is supposed to be some sort of human chess game, then you really don't understand it. It's a social experiment, which is one of the first things said during the first episode of Borneo. |
just because something has always been one way does not mean it is the best way for it to be.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pman5595 wrote: | | Josseppe95 wrote: | | pie20spike wrote: | As this discussion has been getting towards, I believe the Russell debate boils down to the kind of game and show people WANT Survivor to be.
Some people watch it because its a very cleverly constructed game which is interesting to watch people play. They believe that, like every other game it should be possible to play it in a way that wins every time (obviously not the SAME way- you don't play Chess the same way every time but grandmasters can consistently and repeatdedly win). Thus really the jury element is a dramatic technicality- the best strategist should win. Other people believe that its more of a social experiance and involves elements of luck and people skills that extend beyond what you need to ensure you don't get voted off.
I ascribe to the former view, and, as someone whos repeatdedly tried to concieve of an almost unbeatable way to get to the end of the 39 days, I really liked Russell for doing just that.
His repeated failure to win has made me dislike the show, and decide to stop watching it, not because I believe he should have won the game of Survivor but because it highlighted to me that the way to win Survivor is not through an inteligent plan to 'beat the game' but (just like real life) by being a likeable enough person (or having unparrarelled physical prowess, or a mix).
I don't like the latter scenerio (above) because it DOES introduce luck into the game. No person could reach the end every time no matter how likeable they are (JT and Amanda are great examples). In direct response to the above post for the show I want to see then the jury would have to vote for the player who has played the ;best' during the 39 days, and there would be strigent criteria for determining this.
To sum up, I thought Survivor was a human version of a board or card game. It turns out that its pretty much like real life because players aren't willing to suspend morals (as you generally do in games- you don't feel guilty about winning, cheating aside) and the social element is much more heavily weighted than the strategic or physical elements. |
It has always been the latter though. Seriously, watch the earlier seasons and you'll see more focus on the social bonds between the people instead of "OMG STRATEGY BLINDSIGHTS!!!" The Russell debate boils down to who gets it and who doesn't. If you honestly think Survivor is supposed to be some sort of human chess game, then you really don't understand it. It's a social experiment, which is one of the first things said during the first episode of Borneo. |
just because something has always been one way does not mean it is the best way for it to be. |
20 seasons in and it's still running strong, I wouldn't call for any changes.
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BNghfreak12
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Besides, Survivor HAS been a social game ever since the beginning. It isn't like anything has changed. Why should the criteria of playing and winning the game be suddenly changed 20 seasons in just because Russell says it's flawed?
I'm not disputing that blindsides and power moves aren't fun, because they are (for the most part), but they aren't the point of winning the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pie20spike
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I'd prefer not for Survivor to change, as everyones right- it does appear to have always been a social experiment not a human chess game.
But I think the majority of people who'd enjoy the latter (presumbly the majority of Russell fans), myself included, should stop watching Survivor as their seemingly never going to be satisfied with the outcome of any season.
_________________
My current goal is:
Complete all Rock Band 3 in-game 'goals'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, I'm like, totally hoping Nicaragua has 16 contestants, merge at 10, 7 jurors, a F2, and no more idols. Plz Mark Burnett?
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BNghfreak12
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ I can agree with that. Classic Survivor sounds pretty good.
Although, there is no way they are getting rid of idols, unfortunately. The fact that the number of idols seems to increase each season (6 played in HvV wtf?) shows they don't seem to be slowing down. Honestly, I don't mind them that much just as long as they aren't excessive like they were in the last 2 seasons. Just 1 idol is good enough.
But yeah, I definitely agree with 16 contestants. 20 contestants has shown to be a failure and even 18 contestants is a little much. 16 is perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BNghfreak12 wrote: | ^ I can agree with that. Classic Survivor sounds pretty good.
Although, there is no way they are getting rid of idols, unfortunately. The fact that the number of idols seems to increase each season (6 played in HvV wtf?) shows they don't seem to be slowing down. Honestly, I don't mind them that much just as long as they aren't excessive like they were in the last 2 seasons. Just 1 idol is good enough.
But yeah, I definitely agree with 16 contestants. 20 contestants has shown to be a failure and even 18 contestants is a little much. 16 is perfect. |
SPOILER ALERT
I've actually read off of TDT that this season is likely to be 18 contestants. I dunno, that's not bad. It's an improvement over 20 for sure.
Regardless of that, 1 idol per tribe would be amazing. <3
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bump for the new season. =D
But I am LOVING Nicaragua so far. Like, thank god we're getting some decent editing and interesting people to watch rather than a mactor-laden cast with awful editing, as it has been with the previous two seasons. 0_0 I am really liking the La Flor tribe, though. <3 I'm a little disappointed that the vastly superior alliance of Shannon/Benry/Kelly B/Alina/Jud are down in numbers to the other pricks (who btw, have an alliance COMPLETELY based on reverse racism :rolleyes:) but w/e, the preview of the last episode indicated a potential swap, which will hopefully save Alina and KB. ^_^
For Espada, I kind of like Holly because she is completely mental, but also sooo hilarious. Like, with the whole debacle involving Dan's shoes. xD Like, who goes and destroys someone's shoes, and then goes and tells EVERYONE what she did? It's so funny. <3 I also like Marty and Jill, but Marty is turning into an uber-douche so I don't know how long that liking will last. Jill, however, seems like the voice of reason in that pairing, so I expect great things from her.
Oh, and I absolutely hate Na'Onka and Sash, but I guess that is to be expected at this point. Na is an absolutely vile human being, and then Sash is an arrogant prick whose idea about a "minority" alliance is fucking racist as hell. Oh, and Shannon was right. The dude should seriously just come out of the fucking closet already...he's not fooling ANYONE.
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pman5595
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 1543
Location: Wayzata High School
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hate NaOnka as well she needs to get eliminated but it probably won't happen soon. I like Tyrone and Jill for the older tribe and Kelly B and Alina for the younger tribe. Jud is hilarious. I take it by your avatar you like Alina especially 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BNghfreak12
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, this season is great so far. Definitely some of the most entertaining personalities we've had in a while. I'm excited for the switch next week.
Na Onka needs to be blindsided. ASAP. I can't stand her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augthebomb 
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 812
Location: Amherst, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised everyone feels this way about Na. She excels at the physical aspect of the game, and isn't too bad of a strategic player, either. I hope this isn't a season where one person flies under the radar and then wins because they're facing a player that, although they had the best gameplay, loses because they weren't "nice."
Last edited by augthebomb on Sun Oct 17, 2010 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| augthebomb wrote: | | I'm surprisd everyone feels this way about Na. She excels at the physical aspect of the game, and isn't too bad of a strategic player, either. I hope this isn't a season where one person flies under the radar and then wins because they're facing a player that, although they had the best gameplay, loses because they weren't "nice." |
Who really cares about her gameplay when she's an awful human being? I mean...it goes the same way for Russell in the past two seasons, he legitimately is just a horrible person.
But UTR players winning <3 It just feels, so *odd-school* when that happens.
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olinea
Joined: 19 Mar 2010
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Josseppe95 wrote: | | But UTR players winning <3 It just feels, so *odd-school* when that happens. |
There's a reason Vecepia wasn't invited back on the show.
But a "We took the 18 most Under-The-Radar players" game would be funny to watch except the ratings would be piss poor.
_________________
| ShadoWolf wrote: | | TheGreatDave wrote: | | When you think about it, charting thunder as five notes is undercharting. Shit needs about, 20. |
Scorehero: Where the 5-note chord is undercharted. |
  Grinded that second one for 18 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josseppe95
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
She wasn't invited back because the editors tried too hard to hide her so no one would suspect her winning, but then it resulted in disdain from the fans when she won because they hid her TOO well. Which is why they haven't edited a winner like that except Natalie, since then.
But like, I *GET* that people don't find that kind of strategy entertaining, because it totally isn't. But whether you like it or not, it works, and fucking well.
_________________
| thecolonel wrote: | Why dont the leaders just get together, get stoned and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
then there would be no war. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
