sav0001
Well-Known Member
I guess, but I feel like Dan and Matt have somewhat played the game abit whereas Sophie and Chad have just floated through
Its easy to play the game though when you have a majority alliance to rely on.
I guess, but I feel like Dan and Matt have somewhat played the game abit whereas Sophie and Chad have just floated through
Its easy to play the game though when you have a majority alliance to rely on.
true, I guess Sophie and Chad could be deemed underdogsIts easy to play the game though when you have a majority alliance to rely on.
Harsh considering Sophie just pulled a pretty clever punch to oust Casey. And didn't Chad convince Casey not to put him or Sophie up for eviction if he dropped out of the previous challenge so she would win.Sophie and Chad probably can't tell their lefts from their rights so I imagine it's hard devising a gameplan
Theory: Mat’s a very dangerous player here for sure, if the rumours are true that he gets to the top 4, I can see him potentially pulling a shock power play by switching sides and voting in favour of the majority alliance with Chad & Sophie at the last nomination to each vote Daniel out, in order to secure a position in the finale, effectively ending his bromance with Daniel and exposing himself as the true villain via the blindside. The show is tryna make him seem like just an average bloke from Broken Hill, but deep down he probably had a master game plan up his sleeve all along.
This makes the most strategic sense, splitting the votes between sophie and chad means that the third person would have a clear advantage in the votes. Do I see Mat doing it though? I don't believe so.
Doing the same thing that was played out 20 years ago on Survivor is not good gameplay. It's just poor gameplay by the entire cohort...The Alpha alliance has!
Doing the same thing that was played out 20 years ago on Survivor is not good gameplay. It's just poor gameplay by the entire cohort...
You do when you play against people with a working brain cell. Everyone knows you need to cut the head off the snake when you have the chance, lest you end up Pagonged...It's great gameplay imo. You don't need to do deep strategy when you're on top.
You do when you play against people with a working brain cell. Everyone knows you need to cut the head off the snake when you have the chance, lest you end up Pagonged...
to be fair, with an audience vote involved there isn't really a strategic way to overall play or win Big Brother IMO. It's all well and good for a housemate to say "we shall vote X out because X will be popular with the audience and will win, and we will keep Y along because Y won't win". But they don't know what it is being shown of them or how the audience is perceiving them. They have no evidence to go off that a person is popular on the outside, they could take someone to the end expecting them to be a goat and the audience for all they know could love them. They could assume a housemate could be popular and vote them out but the audience may have despised them. That is just my opinion anyway, I personally don't view Big Brother overall as a strategic game whilst the audience vote is involved.To be fair I don't think anyone has really exhibited good gameplay this season.
See, this is an interesting topic because I don't believe that's entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.to be fair, with an audience vote involved there isn't really a strategic way to overall play or win Big Brother IMO. It's all well and good for a housemate to say "we shall vote X out because X will be popular with the audience and will win, and we will keep Y along because Y won't win". But they don't know what it is being shown of them or how the audience is perceiving them. They have no evidence to go off that a person is popular on the outside, they could take someone to the end expecting them to be a goat and the audience for all they know could love them. They could assume a housemate could be popular and vote them out but the audience may have despised them. That is just my opinion anyway, I personally don't view Big Brother overall as a strategic game whilst the audience vote is involved.
I remember Rohan from bb 2013 was another housemate who played the game and was open about it. Didn't get him farSee, this is an interesting topic because I'm of the belief that that's not entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.
Both formats require a level of strategy and smarts but with completely different approaches. Former HMs who have openly spoken about their gameplay on the original format is Tim Brunero, Benjamin Norris and Tim Dormer among others. If you consider both Tims, they went in with a clever tactic right from the beginning in which they essentially played the audience throughout their times in the house, whereas somebody like Benjamin played his game the opposite and was strategic with how he nominated (and ultimately evicted) his fellow HMs, whilst limiting the number of times he got nominated in return. Funnily enough all three either won the show or came close to it.
Tim Brunero's strategy is almost a textbook example of how to play the original BB.
Check out from 14:38mins:
There was definitely a way to do it - it just required a little more difficulty and had to be kept almost completely private.
See, this is an interesting topic because I don't believe that's entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.
Both formats require a level of strategy and smarts but with completely different approaches. Former HMs who have openly spoken about their gameplay on the original format include Tim Brunero, Benjamin Norris and Tim Dormer among others. If you consider both Tims, they went in with a clever tactic right from the beginning in which they essentially played the audience throughout their times in the house, whereas somebody like Benjamin played his game the opposite and was strategic with how he nominated (and ultimately evicted) his fellow HMs whilst limiting the number of times he got nominated in return. Funnily enough all three either won the show or came close to it.
Tim Brunero's strategy is almost a textbook example of how to play the original BB.
Check out from 14:38 - 16:14mins, it's worth a listen if you haven't seen this already:
There was definitely a way to do it - it just required a little more difficulty and had to be kept almost completely private.
oh geez I remember this, 'Defence-gate' Could have maybe had a count going how many times she said it during that daily show while rounded them all up and giving them a talking to.Also have a memory of Priya playing the game. I remember the boys were giving her shit in the pool. Then she pulled them all to the side together and told them all off. You could tell she felt uncomfortable doing it, but knew it'd look good on camera and fans would root for her.
I think whether you like them or not the show always suffers when it is built around one housemate and somewhat is able to return to being "Big Brother" and about the collective mix of housemates when they are evicted. In addition quieter, or so called "boring" housemates usually get chance to shine when a dominating character leaves.In my own opinion I believe the show got better once Angela left, I could not stand her.
100. I loved Angela, but enjoyed watching other hm's like Xavier, Casey once she leftI think whether you like them or not the show always suffers when it is built around one housemate and somewhat is able to return to being "Big Brother" and about the collective mix of housemates when they are evicted. In addition quieter, or so called "boring" housemates usually get chance to shine when a dominating character leaves.