flynnibus
Premium Member
But, isn't Survivor at its heart about the social aspect, making friends?
It could be argued that making the most friends is the ideal way to "work the system", as you said.
I'm curious, what would you suggest as an alternate method of choosing the winner?
The social aspect is what EVOLVED in the game. The very idea of an alliance was devised by Hatch in season 1 as a way to establish a voting block.. making it a game of alliances instead of simply 'the best person wins'. The original idea was more about competing and people voting off the undesirables. But then the game evolved when players started collaborating vs simply competing against each other.
So yes, the social aspect is part of the game.. and it is one element of how you PLAY to win. But I'd argue it's still about how you PLAYED - not 'who is my friend or not' - which is how too many of the votes go. Juries hold grudges and don't vote on game play but rather 'who screwed me'. The jury are too personal instead of voting for who played the best.
Well.. an alternative that is simple.. is simply tell the jury they should be voting on who they believed played the best - not 'however you feel like voting'
A second alternative would be to pick the winner by challenges instead of the jury. Obviously that changes the game dynamic a ton since there is no 'fear of the jury' when voting people out.
The idea of manipulating should not be seen as a negative. If jury people would think 'man.. you got me good.. that was well played.. kudos' instead of 'I thought we were friends... that hurt' - the jury voting would be a lot more meaningful to me.
But the lame votes in lots of the seasons put me off so bad. Like Sandra the second time? pfft