This x1000. Shit, Probst has seen the entire game play out twenty times, so he knows how the game works a lot better than Russel does; he was calling shit for what it is. Let’s face it. Russel is a egomaniacal snake with a Short Man Complex. His ego was his complete downfall. He only perceives the game as lying, cheating, and backstabbing your way to the finish, but that is not how to win the game. Ignoring the social factor of the game, combined with his huge ego, caused him to lose not once, but twice.
I agree that the jury shouldn’t get butthurt and salty when taken out of the game, but people will be people; you can’t ignore that aspect of the game. Maybe if they had an entire season full of gigantic assholes like Russel (Survivor: Jersey Shore/Survivor: Guido Edition anyone?), it would turn out differently, but having a non-dynamic cast would be extremely boring.
People in this thread that are butthurt about Russel not winning are just as bitch-mode as both Russel and the jury.
You know, I bet if Parvarti blindsided Russel to put him on the jury, he’d be just as butthurt and wouldn’t vote for her.
haha i agree…Jury people probably think tick throwing is cheap…Only the true players can respect Russells gameplay…Coach probably the scrub that plays with honor & Rupert is probably biggest scrub there is, he does the same thing yet he complains cuz Russell did it better haha…
As for Sandra winning it for the first time, i actually rooted for her cuz that Girl Scout lady was an idiot for not taking Fairplay…Sandra this time around actually did some work, so im not to mad she won but Parvati deserved it more & so did Russel.
I think what Russell is trying to say is that he plays the game it was meant to be played, “outwit, outplay, outlast” which he does perfectly. Sandra does not do any of this. What I learned from this show is the coattail rider usually wins because they get to the end without ever “backstabbing” anyone. So just don’t play in the game and get to the end following the leader.
There is no point in winning challenges, lying to people or any of that. I didn’t even know Sandra was in the game until like a week before the merge. Russell plays the game perfectly, but then hurt too many people to get jury votes because he openly admits that he lied to people and “its part of the game”. If people realized that “its part of the game” and how he played DESERVES to win, he would win. But when people vote, they are bitter about what he has done so they don’t vote, but if they watch the show and vote at the reunion, I bet they will have cooled down and realize he did play right and deserves to win. That is why he always wins Fan favorite by a landslide.
First, that makes Russell sound like a scrub. And from what I can tell, Sandra is pretty damn good at the “outlast” part. Arguably the best. To say she doesn’t do it at ALL is just wrong.
For me, the best (or even a great) Survivor player would setup the jury and bring someone to the finals he or she could beat no matter what. Russell failing to do that twice makes it painfully obvious he lacks a very important part of the game (similar to Amanda). Granted he couldn’t have beaten anyone in the finals. But I actually think that is just further proof of his piss poor social gameplay.
What a lot of us are trying to say is that he didn’t play the game perfectly. For example, Yul from Cook Islands did plenty of lying and playing “the game” and he still had ten times a better strategic game than Russell and he also says it best about being a power player, but still not being targeted: [media=youtube]f8D3WcbvvUc#t=06m00s[/media]. And on the flip side, Ozzy kept the strategic game at a minimum and instead won challenges and kept getting immunity
And thing is, Sandra HAD to follow the leader, she had no choice. I wish I could find that Jeff Probst video of him talking about coattail riders. Although riding coattails isn’t fun to watch, he brings a good point in that if you are trapped, coattail riding is a great way to go until you’re ready to take out your opposition. And also, you can win challenges and whatnot, but you have to be aware of the reactions/backlash of the players in w/e season you play in as it’s always different. It’s akin to Darwin’s survival of the fittest as well. Those who adapt to their situations the best, will win. Russell clearly did not do that and like what Spirit Juice and other people have been saying, Russell booted off physically strong players and his own allies to the jury, and he thinks he should just automatically win for playing hard, but the fact remains that people do hold grudges and they do control the game even when booted off. Not only that, but Russell’s a terrible liar and he doesn’t do a good job of hiding it. Another example that I mentioned before, Todd, the winner from Survivor China. He did plenty of lying, and told the jury “I took you all out, I thought you were a threat, I should win” and got the million bucks. He didn’t play off a giant ego, he didn’t gloat, he didn’t bully others around, he really just did what he needed to do to win. I thought I already mentioned this, but there’s a clear difference between the lying that previous winners have employed and the kind of excessive lying that Russell uses that just pisses people off.
About the fan’s favorite: I wouldn’t say it’s just the gameplay that gets the votes. The producers admitted it’s a popularity contest. Every episode consists of 3 days, and it gets condensed into 42 minutes which is what we as the audience watch and we don’t we don’t know squat about what completely went down as to what really happened and what the contestants actually know. Editing can make any shitty player look good and visa versa. Not only that, but Russell got the most confessionals out of everyone on the show (which is what we as the audience watch) and with his memorable quips, big boasts, and his big badass villain persona that he plays up to for the cameras and the game, he’s good television and it makes it tempting for anyone to vote for him.
Now onto Sandra (again), I cannot understand why people say she didn’t outplay, outwit, outlast. She didn’t do it in a bold gungho way that Russell did, but she certainly did employ those three criteria using her own style. She lost her alliance, had to play under the alliance that killed her own alliance, wasn’t protecting herself with HII/using leverage, she was ignored by everyone due to her lack of numbers, and she was passed off as weak which she used to her advantage. Overall her main game was to be flexible and being able to read people. When her plans weren’t working she dropped it and never pushed it which would have put a target on her. She played an excellent social game for someone who pretty much was left with no true alliance.
For anyone that Russel actually deserved to win twice…think about this for a second:
-The win condition of Survivor is to get the jury votes
-Russel is bad at getting Jury Votes
–> Therefore, Russel is a good player that deserves to win
That shit should not make sense at all, but for some reason, people still think it does.
Also, stop saying that the jury was mad that they got outplayed. That wasn’t their main concern with Russel. Their main concern was that Russel is a giant asshole. And you don’t just give a million dollars to someone you think is a despicable person.
I swear, the past two seasons with Russel made the Survivor fanbase think that the rules of the game have suddenly changed or something.
These Russell fans probably think that rushdown is the only way to play Street Fighter, and that regardless of whether or not you know how to block or zone, if you rushdown like a maniac, you deserve to win. Come on people you should know better…but then again most people on GD are here because they are not so great at SF…
Russell getting robbed in Samoa, Season 19? Ehh…Natalie was responsible for the pivotal Erik boot, and she was friends with everyone (beating a dead horse here, but that is good gameplay), so I wouldn’t say he got robbed, though he did take all the credit for an impressive 4 vs 8 tribal win…those are bad odds in any circumstance. But Russell getting robbed this season? HELL no. He played pretty terribly a good handful of times and didn’t learn crap from Season 19’s FTC.
I’m surprised Parvati’s FTC performance was so lackluster…I wonder what editing took out. Sandra was superb, and was talking to the jury since like 3-4 TCs ago. She had it in the bag…
Amanda and Parvati DEFINITELY had a falling out a while ago, they don’t even seem like friends anymore…
Wtf is wrong with you guys? There’s more pro-Sandra than there are pro-Russell here, quit justifying Russell’s loss… Sandra won plain and simple, she’s a prodigy and God’s gift to the Survivor producers. Russell’s play was too aggressive but made up for some real good TV. Sandra couldn’t even answer what her biggest move in the game was and Jeff moved on without an answer. He asked Russell a question and demanded an answer until he got one. I feel Parvati should have won because she did a lot more but it’s a fact that Sandra won, so congrats Sandra. Jury was bitter, this was their second chance to redeem themselves and/or to prove they can win twice and be the ultimate sole survivor. You can’t expect to play with fire and make deals with the devil without risking getting burnt. Sure it’s Russell’s own fault but it was pretty much most of their own fault that they were eliminated too. But Russell accomplished what he said pre-taping and post-final tribal council that he said he would do and make them look like babies, most of them looked like crying babies. So in conclusion, Russell didn’t get screwed this time like he did in Samoa, Parvati should have won, and Sandra is just plain lucky. What kind of characters will we get next fall?
I had to watch that last immunity challenge again, that was some intense shit.
It was a good season guys, coming in here thinking there’d be good discussion but seeing just bitchassness I will be unsubscribing. See you guys next season, someone should come up with a SRK survivor game!
This is so true, despite me being in GD im actually pretty good in fighting games so i can respect Russel’s game. The Russel haters are just scrub players in SF! Also, you have to put in account that Russel played back to back so when playing the second time around, he still didn’t know the final outcome of his first season. I expected the bitterness from scrub jury from his first season but veterans being all salty is a joke.
The thing is, there has been a player (Brian Heidik) who played just as Russell did. Lie, decieve, make deals with everyone. Do anything to get to the finals. However, he knew how to work people and filled the jury with people that gave him the money. So yes, this is a very good strategy to use to win Survivor. But how can Brian win doing this and Russell fail twice? That makes me think that its the person, not the strategy or game, that is flawed.
Hell. Russell was responsible for most of the people on the jury. So basically, Russell filled a jury with people who would vote for Sandra to win, and then he went and brought her there. I’d hardly call that brilliant (or even good) Survivor play.
If you want to see someone who is actually good at this kind of strategy you need to watch any season with Dr. Will Kirby on Big Brother. His gameplay shits on Russell’s.
I think you’re missing the point…Imagine WWF Royal Rumble, Russel & Pavarti are throwing all the peeps out of the ring. Sandra running away throughout the ring avoiding getting thrown out. Now they are the only 3 left standing, the wrestlers who got thrown out will decide who the winner should be.
So do you give to the guy/gal who beasted everyone & survived or the one who ran away & survived?
Survivor, for 20 seasons, has NEVER been about the one responsible for the most eliminations. It has ALWAYS about being able to get to the end WITH people that want you to win. . Russel sucks at this game because he is absolutely horrible at the latter. No matter how good you are strategically, if you are a giant asshat like Russel is, then no one will feel good about giving you a million dollars.
Who is to say except the people who get thrown out. Perhaps the people thrown out all tried the same strategy that Sandra did, but Sandra did it better than any of them so they vote for her.
That is the beauty of Survivor. You have to learn about the people in the game with you. How they would vote, do they respect a UTR game, will they vote for someone who has lied and cheated to get to the finals. Russell doesn’t do this in the least. Instead he wants to create a new game where that aspect can be ignored.
It very much like Poker. A strategy that might work with one group of players might be useless against another. And as a good player it is your job to recognize what kind of strategy is most beneficial to you. But Russell has this notion that his strategy is the one and only and the game needs to be changed to fit the mold. And that is wrong.
For Russell to demand that the fundamental rules of Survivor be changed is not only a sign of crybabyitis, it’s actually not a bad thing to say on a live finale with millions watching, because many of the millions that watch are idiots and will agree with Russell. Sandra is the clear winner this season, yet in many of her press appearances, she’s had to defend her title as if Russell legitimately had some sort of claim to it. Disrespectful media. But what did you expect? Russell wasn’t gonna clearly say that his game is flawed, he’s gonna blame the actual game and hope no one tries to think about his words too hard. He planted the Russell Seed in the casual viewers’ minds, and they don’t even realize it.
Russell is a dumb ass for thinking he would win.
Russell is also the best player to ever play the game.
I understand Sandra is the winner, but I don’t’ respect it.
Being apart of the FGC where “nothing is cheap” I consider Sandra’s win “cheap.”
Scrubs who casually play FG always say xxx is cheap, but we SRKers say nothing is cheap.
You play to win.
I didn’t feel like Sandra played to win.
With that said I feel like Pravati or Russell should have win. Personally I would of voted for Russell, because I respect his game. Now let hypothetically saying I was butthurt, then I would of voted Prav. In no point would voting for Sandra ever come across my mind.
Prav save Sandra, and Jerri. At least she pulled off a ballsy move.
On another topic.
I love Bill Simmons idea.
They should let the jury decide on who get KICK out of the final three, not who wins.
For example in this last season the Jury would of off Russell.
Then America can vote on Sandra or Prav.
This way the jury still plays an important role, and Russell dumb ass strategy (no end game) will still be useless. However giving the complete outcome to people who are butt hurt is stupid.
2nd they need to up the money for 1st place because with the was inflation and tax Sandra only get about 1million in her two winnings. Which was 2 million.
sandra over parvati isn’t. every challenge where they had to win sandra was out first and russell sucked. parvati and when she was still around danielle hung in til the end except when she wanted pbj sandwich
Really, it comes down to human emotion. 1 million dollars is a life-changing amount of money, and you’re not going to give it someone who was a complete asshole, regardless of their “gameplay”, especially if you had to put up with it a large majority of the time. That’s the underlying reason that Russel’s game was so bad, and for some reason, it’s not terribly obvious
As far as Sandra vs. Parv, as I said, it came down the getting the Heroes vote. Parv’s ultimate downfall was that she was too closely associated to Russel, and that she didn’t appeal to the Heroes emotions as well as Sandra did. Sandra, I felt, took advantage of the anti-Russel vibe PERFECTLY. By being openly anti-Russel, she took of a lot of the heat from herself, where as with Parvati, it stuck with her. To see a great example of this, rewatch Candice’s jury question and her voting confessional.
In terms of the mechanics of the game, it’s fine as it is. Don’t get America involved, period.
The thing about the jury is that if they are “butthurt” then it’s pretty much your fault. It’s the player’s responsibility to make sure that your not the one that the jury hates. That’s where assessing the social situation and dynamics come into play. It’s the player’s job to make sure that they are the one that the jury wants to give their votes to.
And if the jury IS bitter towards you, then you better try your fucking hardest to make them not bitter at the final tribal. Chris from Vanuatu was exceptional at this. He told the jury exactly what they wanted to hear and turned people that were extremely pissed at him into votes for him to win.
