Survivor: San Juan Del Sur- Blood vs. Water II

[PUSH]

Jeff Probst himself has said that whomever wins played the best game that season. A strong social game, no matter how we feel about it, is a legitimate way to win. If you can get to the end of the game and be voted the winner because the jury hates the other players more than you than you did something right. That is the outlast part of Survivor.

Sure it's a legitimate way to win, but I don't feel like it's the best way. I think it should be based on gameplay and not who blindsided who. I love strategy, and I think strategy is a more critical part to the game than social or physical, but a blend of all three is the perfect way. Unfortunately this season doesn't have anyone with the perfect blend of the three.

I don't buy into the debate that whoever wins is the best player from that season. A lot of the game is luck, too.

 

[DinoInstitute]

I just think we have different opinions on what good gameplay is.

There's a lot that goes into this. I agree with both of you.
For example, people complain sometimes about mistakes Tony may have made last season, but he still won. Could he have been a bigger legend though? In Samoa or whatever it was, Russel played a better game than Natalie, but she won because he didn't have a great social game. There's a lot to consider and both sides have merit.
This season, I think Jon is playing the best, but Natalie is creeping up from behind and is ready to take the title.
I think Josh, Jeremy, and Reed played pretty good games, but they didn't have the opportunity to make big moves. I think Dale was also pretty good, he had one of the best moves of the season. If it weren't for Jaclyn convincing Jon not to switch, we just may have had one of the most interesting dynamics in the merge ever (and that is actually the one place all season really where I have to applaud Jaclyn).
Keith, arguably, can make a case too. Strategic and Social are two of the three great aspects of the game, but also Immunity and challenges. Keith has won two and never had a poor performance in one, so that shows how he is playing the game for safety in that aspect. Plus, he found and played an idol. So, there is a case on his hands to make.

Off topic- There's just something about Keith that I like. He reminds me of Rudy from season one. He's just an endearing old man Hopefully he has more game to play (and doesn't make any stupid mistakes)

 

[PUSH]

The ideal Survivor winner in my mind would be someone like Spencer who was dominant in all three major phases of the game - strategy, social, and physical. Unfortunately these people are often the biggest threats and voted out before they have a chance to win.

My favorite players (from the seasons that I've seen so far) are... Boston Rob, Rob C, Rupert, and Spencer. In no particular order.

 

[DinoInstitute]

The ideal Survivor winner in my mind would be someone like Spencer who was dominant in all three major phases of the game - strategy, social, and physical. Unfortunately these people are often the biggest threats and voted out before they have a chance to win.

My favorite players (from the seasons that I've seen so far) are... Boston Rob, Rob C, Rupert, and Spencer. In no particular order.

I agree. And yet, to make them the best player and make the season great...there needs to be one more thing about them...Likable. The hero.
Maybe its jut people liking to root for the underdog, but it seems like in recent seasons its been that the hero strategic players were in the minority.
And also, there should be another player, villain, of opposite power that loses.

But, now I'm getting into what makes up a great season, which is a completely different discussion

 

[PUSH]

I agree. And yet, to make them the best player and make the season great...there needs to be one more thing about them...Likable. The hero.
Maybe its jut people liking to root for the underdog, but it seems like in recent seasons its been that the hero strategic players were in the minority.
And also, there should be another player, villain, of opposite power that loses.

But, now I'm getting into what makes up a great season, which is a completely different discussion

What makes a great season: entertaining players. Which isn't what this season has many of.

 

[flynnibus]

At least we don't have the cryers or the other forms of drama queens this season.

 

[DinoInstitute]

What makes a great season: entertaining players. Which isn't what this season has many of.

Pretty much
But also I think the story is a major factor. And this season may just have that with the whole revenge thing they are building up.

While I am rooting for Natalie, I kind of want to see Jon win immunity again to see how that keeps it going

 

[PUSH]

Pretty much
But also I think the story is a major factor. And this season may just have that with the whole revenge thing they are building up.

While I am rooting for Natalie, I kind of want to see Jon win immunity again to see how that keeps it going

I also wish Julie hadn't of quit. I think that would have kept more strategic players in, and strategy usually brings quality entertainment. And if Rocker made it to the merge, that would have been fun to see! So many what-ifs, though.

 

[DinoInstitute]

I also wish Julie hadn't of quit. I think that would have kept more strategic players in, and strategy usually brings quality entertainment. And if Rocker made it to the merge, that would have been fun to see! So many what-ifs, though.

Yeah. There always is the "well, maybe if this didn't happen..."
I felt that a lot more with Lindsey quitting last season, but hey, the season still turned out amazing.

 

[seahawk7]

I just think we have different opinions on what good gameplay is.

No I think we agree, I think we we disagree what some gameplay wins Survivor. I agree with you, I want the more assertive person who wins challenges and makes bigger moves to win. Unfortunately that is not always the case. So I'm just saying that social gameplay wins sometimes, therefore it is valid whether we like it or not. I agree with you.

 

[seahawk7]

Sure it's a legitimate way to win, but I don't feel like it's the best way. I think it should be based on gameplay and not who blindsided who. I love strategy, and I think strategy is a more critical part to the game than social or physical, but a blend of all three is the perfect way. Unfortunately this season doesn't have anyone with the perfect blend of the three.

I don't buy into the debate that whoever wins is the best player from that season. A lot of the game is luck, too.

I have read that the best game players don't always win, but would you rather be called one of the better players of Survivor or would you actually want to win? People like Boston Rob are called great players who don't win only to be invited back. They come come back and once they win, they don't come back. Although I think Boston Rob wanted to but had some family commitments to tend to.
Anyhoo, I think everyone who goes on Survivor goes to win.
Also, there are some who just dominate with a plan like Boston Rob ' s winning season and Parvarti. That girl dominated. But yes luck does come into play in most seasons.

 

[seahawk7]

There's a lot that goes into this. I agree with both of you.
For example, people complain sometimes about mistakes Tony may have made last season, but he still won. Could he have been a bigger legend though? In Samoa or whatever it was, Russel played a better game than Natalie, but she won because he didn't have a great social game. There's a lot to consider and both sides have merit.
This season, I think Jon is playing the best, but Natalie is creeping up from behind and is ready to take the title.
I think Josh, Jeremy, and Reed played pretty good games, but they didn't have the opportunity to make big moves. I think Dale was also pretty good, he had one of the best moves of the season. If it weren't for Jaclyn convincing Jon not to switch, we just may have had one of the most interesting dynamics in the merge ever (and that is actually the one place all season really where I have to applaud Jaclyn).
Keith, arguably, can make a case too. Strategic and Social are two of the three great aspects of the game, but also Immunity and challenges. Keith has won two and never had a poor performance in one, so that shows how he is playing the game for safety in that aspect. Plus, he found and played an idol. So, there is a case on his hands to make.

Off topic- There's just something about Keith that I like. He reminds me of Rudy from season one. He's just an endearing old man Hopefully he has more game to play (and doesn't make any stupid mistakes)

Yeah the thing I like about Keith is his work ethic. He gets annoyed with Jon for being lazy and not trying in reward challenges. I think it's a generational thing. I think @PUSH and I have had miscommunication here. I actually agree with him on what approach to the game we like to see.
It's just that Survivor is about 15 years old, I remembering watching the very first tribal council with my infant son sleeping.
So there has been a lot of gameplay that has made winners. I just feel that that gameplay should be represented in any conversation of Survivor. That is why I say don't count Missy out, and why I am suspect of Jon ' s abilities because I'm not sure if Missy is guiding him. I could be wrong about Jon. He just doesn't seem to me like good players from past seasons.
I too thought Dale was a good player. I'm flabbergasted that two duos are still in the game. So I'm just comparing all the seasons of past to what the current season is and I have to say, that after this week's episode ( which I always on Saturday) I think the discussion might be different.

 

[seahawk7]

The ideal Survivor winner in my mind would be someone like Spencer who was dominant in all three major phases of the game - strategy, social, and physical. Unfortunately these people are often the biggest threats and voted out before they have a chance to win.

My favorite players (from the seasons that I've seen so far) are... Boston Rob, Rob C, Rupert, and Spencer. In no particular order.

Just curious why Parvarti isn't on your list.

 

[seahawk7]

I agree. And yet, to make them the best player and make the season great...there needs to be one more thing about them...Likable. The hero.
Maybe its jut people liking to root for the underdog, but it seems like in recent seasons its been that the hero strategic players were in the minority.
And also, there should be another player, villain, of opposite power that loses.

But, now I'm getting into what makes up a great season, which is a completely different discussion

I think there are two discussions here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about what players make the show enjoyable to watch right? I'm more concerned with who plays the game to win. In Parvarti ' s season, I couldn't stand her. I thought she was just so cuttthroat. But she turned out to be one of my favorite winners because she dominated, and we all have to admit, men have a hard time with the strong women. Yeah, I know I should want to be entertained by the show, but I just really want to see how these people win. I find it fascinating and I think that is why Survivor has been studied for its social politics. It is human chess, and how entertaining is chess to those who are not playing it?

 

[PUSH]

Just curious why Parvarti isn't on your list.

Because I haven't seen her season yet, therefore it's unfair of me to judge her based on the short list of facts I know about her.

 

[seahawk7]

Because I haven't seen her season yet, therefore it's unfair of me to judge her based on the short list of facts I know about her.

Ok.

 

[seahawk7]

http://robhasawebsite.com/the-survi...ill-holdin-on-strategic-game-whats-the-story/

http://robhasawebsite.com/lessons-i...sode-11-12-history-make-the-blindside-happen/

 

[NYwdwfan]

Because I haven't seen her season yet, therefore it's unfair of me to judge her based on the short list of facts I know about her.

She's one of those players I found incredibly annoying her first season but liked her when she came back in later allstar seasons (twice, I think).

Ozzy and Amanda are others you may not yet have seen that I really liked.

 

[PUSH]

Natalie is turning into the player that I thought she could be at the beginning of the season. Out of the 5 remaining, she definitely deserves to win, but who knows if she'll get there. I think the next smartest move would be to break up Missy and Baylor, because they will hold the power in the final 4 if not broken up. And Keith didn't blow it! Jon got too comfortable as is a problem a lot of times. Never look to the end this far ahead! I also think this episode showed more of Missy's gameplay. She's worked on loyalty instead of made any big moves. I am glad, though, that she didn't have to leave the game.

Should be a fun finale!

 

[DinoInstitute]

Natalie is turning into the player that I thought she could be at the beginning of the season. Out of the 5 remaining, she definitely deserves to win, but who knows if she'll get there. I think the next smartest move would be to break up Missy and Baylor, because they will hold the power in the final 4 if not broken up. And Keith didn't blow it! Jon got too comfortable as is a problem a lot of times. Never look to the end this far ahead! I also think this episode showed more of Missy's gameplay. She's worked on loyalty instead of made any big moves. I am glad, though, that she didn't have to leave the game.

Should be a fun finale!

I agree. Nice episode, and I kind of felt sorry for Missy, but she almost was completely ridiculous not voting out jon. I agree about Keith...He played it very well! Natalie may have helped though, and she is now guaranteed final 4 because of the idol. Looking forward to the finale a lot too...We obviously have a very interesting start with Jac vs Nat, and probably more to come (which they wouldn't show because of spoilers)