on survivor

Despite not watching any of this current season, I watched the finale. The finale started with 5 people, narrowing down to a final three.

Some thoughts overall. Spoilers to follow.

Rupert and Colby have both appeared on three seasons.
Russell has appeared on two seasons.
All three of them were successful, but never won it all.
Sandra appeared on two seasons, winning both times.

The best part of Survivor is that the jury of voted out people decides the winner.
The worst part is that alliances make it so predictable for most of the season.

Rupert and Colby are the archetype good guy. They are nice, usually strong in challenges, helpful around camp, and generally honest.
Russell is the archetype bad guy, though very strategic. He lies to everyone, but is also strong in challenges, and always focused on doing what it takes to advance.

Neither of these have proven to be good formulas to winning it all.
The formula for winning it all, is to not be a threat in challenges, to align yourself with the right people, to be disliked enough that someone will bring you to the final three, but liked enough that the jury will vote for you.
Russell could have brought Colby over Sandra to the final three. But he figured that Sandra was more disliked than Colby. That was Sandra's key, that she wasn't too nice or a threat. But when it came to the final three, the jury liked her the best.

Russell made the point that he played the game the best.

This is interesting and important. How you define playing the game the best. Some people might say that winning challenges, pulling your fair share of weight around camp, and doing whatever it takes to advance is playing the game the best. Controlling the game by deciding who's going home and who stays.

There is a part of me that can see that the above paragraph is true, and using that definition Russell should have gotten more votes than Sandra. But I hated Russell. I didn't want him to win. And the jury felt the same way. Once you get betrayed, you don't see things in the light of who "played the game the best." At that point, from an outsider's perspective, we see that playing the game the best is really defined as doing what it takes to advance, but posing little threat and getting people to like you.

While the whole notion of being on an island and playing for fire and reward challenges of food and seeing your family feels boring and overdone to me, there is a basic strategy element of the game that I love. I feel there could be a fresh take on it, especially getting down to a final jury, and what it takes to get people to vote for you.

I also wish that there was someone to not allow alliances early in the game. I really don't like when a tribe of 8 people show up and it's 7-1, and they've picked out someone who isn't obviously the weakest link. I think it would be a lot more interesting if we had people casting votes based on their own observations, and you might get a 3-2-2-1 split, or even a 2-2-1-1-1-1 split.