The Game Design of Survivor 40
Wired has an article looking at a game designer working in a fairly unique space: reality television. Clive Thompson discusses the game design of the show Survivor , done mostly by the show's creator Mark Burnett. From the article: "While tweaking Survivor, he closely studied John Nash's game theory in order to better engineer the hysteria and emotional blowouts of each season's finale. 'What Nash's theory predicts is that whenever you have a group of people competing, they collude to squeeze one guy out, again and again, until there's only two guys left,' Burnett notes. 'Yet when there are only two of us left, we're surprised when one of us [screws] each other over. That's the fun part. It surprised John Nash himself, but it happens every time.'"
I preferred... (Score:2)
Not related (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, back on topic. Nash created ways of describing so many behaviors but he did it so simply. In addition to his mind, his theories are beautiful. Whether competing in an outdoor gameshow or trying to pick up ladies at the club, game theory works wonders. (And no, I am not suggesting that you walk up to a girl and start talking to her about math. It doesn't work so well. Trust me.)
Re:Not related (Score:2)
math (Score:3, Funny)
Stay away from girls who don't like to talk about math, or whatever it is your into. The ones who like the same things are less likely to intoduce you to fractions like (1/2) down the road.
Re:Not related (Score:1)
Gold Rush (Score:4, Funny)
This doesn't sound like a bright idea. If there is literally $1 million just laying around somewhere, I think we're going to end up with a few arrests for damage to property, plus some homicides before the game ends.
Re:Gold Rush (Score:2)
Hell I was damaging property BEFORE I knew there was money to be found in "them there floorboards"!
Re:Gold Rush (Score:1)
Homocides and arrests? Awesome! Now that you mentioned that, Gold Rush is going to be an enormous hit!
Any kind of PR is good PR. Screw the flack, how much advertising $$ does flack bring in? :-)
Jewel^WGold Rush (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds familiar [atreasurestrove.com]...
Realistically, they will have to implement the same policy - using tokens instead of leaving the actual prize on site. Given that this is purely a publicity promotion, they lose much of its value if nobody ever publicly claims a prize. If they force the participants to accept the prize at a network studio, they have the adde
Re:Jewel^WGold Rush (Score:2)
Re:Jewel^WGold Rush (Score:2)
Rubbish (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rubbish (Score:1)
More detail would've been interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
The bit about Survivor was interesting, but I would have liked to see more discussion about how they tried to change the game over the years to keep up with players who understood its nature.
The most fascinating thing about the first season of Survivor, for me, was that some of the players clearly understood what it would take to win, but many didn't. Starting with the second season and players having seen the game played out once, the game had a very different feel. Reading more about the things they tried to keep it still a thinking game yet unpredictable, what worked and what didn't, would have been cool.
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
There is nothing about game that requires that you have to be dishonest or backstab. I have thought it would be facinating if once a group of players realized this and said, "
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Requires, no. However, you're kidding yourself if you think selective (and that part is crucial) dishonesty is not key to optimal play of the game.
Backstabbing at a crucial moment isn't the only tool in a Survivor player's arsenal. It isn't the only factor in whether you'd win or lose. It is possible to win Survivor without ever lying or backstabbing. But, all that said, if you are unwilling or unable to use that
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
So I don't know that being totally honest a
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
There've been at least a few cases over the many seasons of Survivor wherein someone basically did this, and then got voted out due to the
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
This is where you go wrong. The chance of someone betraying you, is a lot higher if they know that you are going to betray them. If you have a large enough group of people, then nobody is sure who is going to be betrayed (you only need to vote one person of) - it is best if everybody thinks that someone else will be voted of. Then they don't
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
I strongly suspect it was better viewing than the current Big Brother lot in the UK, who bring tedium to new levels.
Grab.
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:2)
Of course now they've changed it so that the audience doesn't vote but the house guests making it basically just Survivor in a house.
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:1)
He won by building the one and only stable coalition in the game, while the rest of the players bounced around randomly, never thinking to build voting blocs.
The only significant lying was that he denied the existance of the coalition, as did every other member of it. He didn't even deny it that vociferously.
In fact, Hatch was one of the most HONEST players of the game ever -- precisely because a pure coalition building strategy was possible in
Re:More detail would've been interesting. (Score:1)
There's also a followup article, much briefer, though: http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_135.phtml [skotos.net]
Why Survivor Works (Score:5, Interesting)
It works so well, in my opinion, because of the length of the "season" and the isolation of the players. It starts out, I assume, like any other reality show; with everyone acting awkward. The loud obnoxious person making an ass of him/her-self. The shy ones hiding out in the background. But over the weeks (the show lasts 39 days i think) as the field whittles down, more of eveyone's true personality comes out and eventually I think it gets as "real" as reality tv can get.
Add to that the fact that it requires a combination of physical and mental strength to win. Winning all of the challenges will certainly get you there, so will aligning with the proper people and really manipulating them. What comes off as bitchy/asshole-ish in other reality shows, really could win you the game in Survivor.
Unfortunately I still hear a lot of people lump Survivor in with any other reality show: The Bachelor, Big Brother, American Idol. But whatever, we don't all have to like the same stuff.
Re:Why Survivor Works (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons that I prefer a show like "The Apprentice", where merit is the constant driving force in the game, ra
Re:Why Survivor Works (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on that description, and the popularity of the show,
you'd think more people would be interested in politics.
Re:Why Survivor Works (Score:1)
And it seems like so far the winner of the show is either the most selfish/backstabbingist person OR someone who made no moves what-so-ever and just squeeked in by not being noticed. Those situations actually tick me off more, I'd rather some jerk who played win over someone who was just there for fun.
But to add to that,
Re:Why Survivor Works (Score:2)
And, at least in the UK version, there is still a lot of backstabbing and blame passing.
Re:Why Survivor Works (Score:2)
Funny thing is, I know they had an Australian version, and there were probably others, but they were just not as good. Something about Americans being entertainers (or backstabbing bastards - depends how you see thigns)
Survivor is not an original idea (Score:4, Informative)
John Nash's Game Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been here two years and have seen this happen over and over again like clockwork.....I haven't been able to decide whether the boss, who is a big fan of Survivor, is creating this environment on purpose (through knowledge of Nash's theory) or if it's just a product of her being a crank.
God, I so need a new job.
Re:John Nash's Game Theory (Score:2)
Re:John Nash's Game Theory (Score:1)
Survivor PC Game... Sucks... (Score:2)