Jump to content

Are Survivor Players Better Gamers Than Bb? A Debate.


Xal
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking this morning about Survivor and BB. I came to the conclusion that in Survivor the contestants with the biggest mouths who start the most trouble tend to be taken out FAST, and by fast I mean before the merge. You'll notice the ones who boss around (in a "bossy" manner), are rude or just plain annoying tend to be taken out fast.

The people who tend to stick around are the thoughtful ones, the pleasant ones, the ones who win challenges (they want these people on their team to win for their tribe UNTIL merge, then they usually try to get the best challenge winners out).

BB tends to be the opposite very often. The most obnoxious, and often rudest tend to stay around a long time. Players like Ivette, Dr. Will, Boogie, Evel Dick, just to name a few, would not last two weeks in Survivor if they acted the same way because their tribes would not have it. They'd end up poisoning the morale and whatnot.

So I must ask the simple question...why? Are the best of the best players in Survivor simply better at gamesmanship than the best of the best in BB?

I realize they are different games but a bad attitude is a bad attitude in both games and for whatever reason more people with that type of personality hang around in BB.

I think it's a very interesting comparison which could be debated for a very long time.

My personal opinion? I think in many ways the people who try out for Survivor are a different breed. Where BB tends to draw in a lot of people who are there for the publicity and are interested in making good TV so that they can get their 15 minutes of fame and possibly become a C celebrity, Survivor gamers tend to be more there for the experience and the game.

Yes, the money is nice in BOTH shows but I really don't think most Survivor gamers are interested in making "good tv" because they're too busy trying to get through the experience and enjoy it while it lasts. BB contestants seem more "entitled" and seem more interested in making their mark.

Hell, do you think Probst or any of the Survivor producers would ever let their contestants talk back the way BB contestants do to BB?

The debate is on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

survivor contestants are by far more intelligent game wise to the obvious. in survivor they actually make a effort to take out the gamers who dominate comps bb hg are not as bright . bb casting is very apparently that they cast certain hg for their lack of common sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UVP, another thing you'll notice is almost to a person BB players are, for the most part, very attractive physically. Survivor has some attractive men and women but they try to mix it up more and put more "everyday" types in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casting for BB does suck totally filled with wannabie hollywood types..

Also Survivor has a different mentality.. Sure ultimate goal is to be last man standing...

However.. Everytime you send someone home pre-merge you are hurting yourself.. Unless you cut away the chaff that is slowing you down. The only option in the start is to send home the weak links and people who drag you down.. If you send home your strongest players 1st you slit your throat and your eliminated with the merge.

in BB goal is to make it to the end anyway possible.. You Dont need the other houseguests for anything.. You don't rely on them for anything... That is why BB needs a format change to mirror more of the BB international games.. where the HG's have to play it up for America.. Where they are given tasks to preform and if they fail their task they get no prize money for that week or whatever other consequences.. If this was the case.. and you were always being penalized shopping money cause Danielle kept talking without her mic on or Eric jumps into the pool with his mic and kills it.. or the million other reasons BB can decide to fine a player hurting everyones budget.. then people would smarten up and get rid of the chaff..

Thats the Main difference to why the chaff is cut in Survivor and not in BB... in BB you dont need or want the brightest smartest more fit then you around.. You want the dumb and hated and stupid.. so you can win contests and get on peoples good sides because you are better then the people around you. While in Survivor if you cut the strong You lose and you lose big (espcailly pre-merge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On survivor anyone can be "evicted" at any time which creates a much different strategy twist from BB. I think its difficult to make a comparison because of the live feed situation with BB we get to see a true picture of what goes on in the house, versus the edited story that makes it to the broadcast show. I love to get a chance to see some of the raw survivor footage, I think it might provide a very different view than most of us currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still laugh at the remarks Jase made on All Stars saying that he was meant for Survivor (as he gazed into the mirror and primped for 12 hours straight).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bb mentality of doing whats best for the house makes no sense in the beginning. if the ultimate goal is to be the lone survivor at the end. how does doing what best for the house accomplish this eg. jen putting up joe vs dick week 2 when she knew joe was a goner, because of this she had to endure the wrath of dick for doing what was the best for the house. survivor contestant imho usually do whats best for them in the beginning in bb its the complete opposite and in the long run help shape their ultimate game fated which is eviction. survivor contestant for most part see bigger picture which is to outlast you must rid your tough competitors for jen it was dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that Survivor Players are better gamers than BB, I just think that the constraints of each game result in different types of play. First, there are major difference between the shows. Survivor is only 39 days long where BB last more than twice that time. Survivor is only on for 1 hour a week where BB is on 24/7 through the entire summer. So, while we know that the contestants talk to BB all the time, we have no idea if the contestants on survivor do that (My opinion is that they probably do).

Now lets talk about game play, to survive in survivor premerge is to win immunity. Therefore the contestants need to work as a team. So that means keeping the stronger players around. Which is why the bossy and the weak are the first to leave on survivor. After the merge the game becomes more like BB and that is when the strong people are kicked off.

On BB there is no incentive to being on a team. From day 1 you are on your own and the only way to really insure staying in the house is in your own hands. It pays in the beginning to be nice....if you are strong to not win. BB gets rid of the strong and the annoying in the beginning. If you can last until sequester things change a little bit. Aroound sequester I think people really start thinking final two and it then becomes about who can I beat in the final 2. Which means the strong go and the annoying stay. Making people hate you at point is a good thing. It will take you to the finals, you won't win 500,000 but you will go to the finals. Dick is a perfect example of that strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that what's best for the house mentality is driven by the HOH being concerned about who's going to come after me next week? In survivor no such issue. Also you notice on survivor the alliances are iron clad, one of my frustrations with the show, while on BB they are constantly changing as the power shifts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On BB there is no incentive to being on a team.

did you watch last few season of bb. if you werent on a team you were basically screwed in the game. if donatos were not on the team of anti mra they wouldnt have lasted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On BB there is no incentive to being on a team

Yeah, Zach and Jen did so well without a team. Whatever!

In BB there is no incentive to stay true to one team. At least in survivor you kind of have to wait a while before you stab someone in the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that what's best for the house mentality is driven by the HOH being concerned about who's going to come after me next week? In survivor no such issue. Also you notice on survivor the alliances are iron clad, one of my frustrations with the show, while on BB they are constantly changing as the power shifts.

in jen case it made no since for her to care what the house thought they still hated her lol. imho if the house hate you now i dont see how making a particular nom would then make friends instead of foes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you watch last few season of bb. if you werent on a team you were basically screwed in the game. if donatos were not on the team of anti mra they wouldnt have lasted

I have watch every season of BB. I am not saying that teams don't happen. My point is on BB from day one you are alone. BB does not assign teams, Survivor does. In the beginning of Survivor you have to work as a team. In BB, while the team concept exists power corrupts and how many times have we seen teams fall apart because they are ultimately playing for themselves and not the team. Cough, howie, cough. That is what I meant be there being no incentive to being on a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point thats why i made jen statement to do what was right for her and not the house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team concept on Survivor is built in. You HAVE to compete on a team at first. Immunity is a TEAM immunity. That is a lot different than alligning yourself with the "house."

BB gets rid of the strong and the annoying in the beginning

If that were true, Dick and Dani would have BOTH been gone! (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to join in the discussion, you are free not to.

It is a perfectly legitimate discussion, however, for people who are interested in comparing and contrasting the two reality tv games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is comparing apples and oranges... The two shows are way to different to compare the players to each other... Who knows how things would be on BB without the PoV and HoH bedroom, etc... JMHO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about it, though, the race war season of Survivor did have Big Brother tendancies. One team threw a comp in order to get rid of an annoying person. Later, i think they regretted it, as it put them at a tremendous disadvantage when they merged the tribes.

Another side to Survivor and keeping the teams stronger, is no one really knows when the merges happen or if they will have to switch teams. Although Big brother is suppose to be asocial experiment, Survivor depends more on social skills. Although it' easy to vote out the stronger competitor, it's usually the stronger competitors who have the stronger social game (Ozzy, Yul, Tom, etc.)

i think Survivor and Big Brother is a good comparison. i see the survivor winners doing much better on big brother than the BB winners doing on survivor (even without the whole stranded on an island have to catch your own fish deal). There is a level of trust that the winners of Survivor depended on in order to do better in the game. In Big Brother the level wasn't really there (outside of trusting one other person).

BTW - Thank you for starting a discussion thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share








Living Room

Living Room

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...