stevelabny said:
and thats the difference. I don't care if the people are "decent" or not. Mainly because I'm smart enough to know that if someone is an idiot on Survivor, it doesnt mean theyre an idiot in real life. And vice versa.
I, too, watch it for the game and all its trappings. The beauty of the game is that unlike professional sports, emotions DO matter. They influence alliances, votes and can get you eliminated if you aren't careful.
I love the schemers, I love the "moral" players and I love the idiots. They are all fun to watch. The kind I don't like are the lazy bums who bring nothing to the game. Like Janu. She was basically a lump.
stevelabny said:
i watch the GAME to see people play the GAME.
there were two years where the game was completely lopsided for long periods and the game was just ruined at the end (season 2 after the fire and with colby giving the game away at the end and season 10 with the massacre and ian just giving up for no reason)
Those season suffered because of it. The game was less interesting, and then totally disrespected. Players must respect the game.
We just see it differently. The game should be respected, but it's not everything. Ian made he choice quite concienciously. He made the choice that his integrity was worth more than a shot at the million. That was his part of the game. But then again, if Katie and Tom hadn't taken advantage of his personality he may have been in the final two and won the whole thing. So in that instance I saw him get simply outplayed and outwitted. It was all part of the game. The rules aren't as cut and dry as I belive you see them.
stevelabny said:
(one might argue that season 1 with the alliance was also lopsided, but season 1 gets the "it was new and it all felt new" exemption")
what many people see as a "good person" i see as a "moron who can't keep his emotions in check" or "idiot who forgot this is a GAME"
Giving Rupert a million dollars for nothing completely sickened me.
For the record, I didn't like that Rupert got a million just for being a good guy. But then again, it made many fans happy and most likely will never happen again. I pretty much ignored it.
stevelabny said:
Boston Rob, Johnny Fairplay, Richard Hatch. These guys knew they were playing a game and acted like it.
Big Tom, Rudy, Rob C. These were great characters who respected the game.
I agree that they were great characters. But they simply played the game, just like many others have with varied degrees of sucess. Just think of how many players were voted off early in the game so we never got to see enough of them to see how they played.
stevelabny said:
If I watch a professional sport, I don't want to see one team quit or take it easy on their opponents because they feel bad. When the NFL bans each new form of trash-talking, I cringe. When athletes go into pre-scripted speeches about how everyone is respobisble for their sucess except themselves, I don't want to listen.
Survivor isn't the NFL nor do I expect it to be. Emotions do play a part in the game. Discounting that isn't giving the game enough credit.
stevelabny said:
I don't want my DM to fudge a dice roll to save me.
If I'm playing Settlers of Catan, I don't feel bad if I cut someone off, or talk trade to see what cards people have, and then play a Monopoly card and steal it all. I don't feel bad if I place the robber on someone. I am playing by the rules of the game. I am trying to win. If it means that I make you lose...try harder next time, loser. There is nothing personal. There is only THE GAME.
When there is a game, I want to watch or play the game and revel in the skills and strategies involved. "there is no crying in baseball" or any other game.
Competition is FUN. If I whoop you at a game, and trash talk about it. I expect you to bring it back to me twice as hard the next time we play. And if you win, I'll take your trash like a man. Games do not exist just to pass time. Games were invented for a human's competitive nature. There are plenty of other hobbies or pasttimes without competition involved for the weak natured.
That is certainly one way to look at it, without a doubt.
stevelabny said:
And I still wont be happy about any All-Stars in the future unless it involves these two PLAYERS: Johnny Fairplay, and Jeff Probst.
Fairplay simply must be in the next All-Stars. It would be a crime if he wasn't. I also want to see Rob C. on the next All-Stars even though it was on the last one. He is one of the most under-rated players in the history of the show.
As for Probst, it would be interesting and I'm certainly not opposed to it.
