|
||||||||
Dishonour Amongst Thieves - The End Of The Strategic Player? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under me tin hat.
Posts: 11,925
|
Dishonour Amongst Thieves - The End Of The Strategic Player?
One of the things that has allowed strategic players to shine on BB in the past was the fact that a large number of HMs had a kind of 'honour amongst thieves' mentality. If you shook on something, or swore on your life, you stuck by your word. Sometimes (obviously) HMs couldn't always follow through on their promises, but the majority of time they at least tried, or got themselves in a position where they could get out of the promise without getting blood on their hands (such as throwing comps, etc.).
In recent series though this seems to have changed, with more people willing to go back on their word. In this past series, it is hard to remember anyone keeping to their promises. And the level of paranoia in the house was such that those who did make deals, didn't trust them anyway. So my question is, if this honour amongst thieves mentality has now gone from BB, have we seen the end of the strategic player? Afterall, if you can't cut deals that you can trust, how can you make the kinds of strategic alliances/deals necessary to get you to the end of the show that we have seen in the past? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,345
|
It's all circumstance, imo.
Dan was a strategic player last year, he worked the other HGs, and came out on top. This year, Jordan took a different route (perhaps not intentionally, but in this situation it worked out for her). And you can still make trustworthy deals/alliances; Jeff/Jordan would never have betrayed each other... they're just less common nowadays, which is understandable. As time goes on, the game evolves, and different strategies are required. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 18,959
|
Dan won last year and he was one of the best strategic players of all time.
The reason Natalie lost was because she was just a horrible person who sucked at comps and lied TOO much, the viewers saw it and the housemates saw it. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,385
|
I think you can still be strategic and win - take Kevin. Kevin would have won if he hadnt lost the final HoH comp imo. And Dan won last year after playing quite an aggressive game towards the end of the season.
I think the jury just saw how awful Natalie was, and couldnt justify her winning. Plus Jordan had 3 certain jury votes anyway, and I think looking back, Lydia would never have voted on gameplay - she would always have gone for Kevin first, and then whoever was against Natalie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 18,959
|
Quote:
I think you can still be strategic and win - take Kevin. Kevin would have won if he hadnt lost the final HoH comp imo. And Dan won last year after playing quite an aggressive game towards the end of the season.
I think the jury just saw how awful Natalie was, and couldnt justify her winning. Plus Jordan had 3 certain jury votes anyway, and I think looking back, Lydia would never have voted on gameplay - she would always have gone for Kevin first, and then whoever was against Natalie. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 11,345
|
I think Jordans win this series might be the thing to kill strategic playing, in the past the 'best player' has (almost) always taken the crown and people are rewarded for playing the game.
This season Jordan got rewarded for not playing the game and Natalie lost votes because she wasn't seen as 'nice'. Why would anyone go on next year and bother playing hard after seeing this season? Sit back and enjoy the summer, be nice, win. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 18,959
|
Quote:
I think Jordans win this series might be the thing to kill strategic playing, in the past the 'best player' has (almost) always taken the crown and people are rewarded for playing the game.
This season Jordan got rewarded for not playing the game and Natalie lost votes because she wasn't seen as 'nice'. Why would anyone go on next year and bother playing hard after seeing this season? Sit back and enjoy the summer, be nice, win. I mean just look at the winners: Dr Will - Invented the strategic game play of BB. Ruthless, cut throat and deceptive. Lisa - Sweet, down to earth girl, didn't do a whole lot of strategy, road coat-tails. She beat one of the games best strategic players ever in Danielle. This came after a Will win remember. Jun - Definitely cut throat, deceptive, created the art of perfect floating. Was a bitch at times too. This came after a Lisa win. Drew - A 'nice' guy. Your typical American boy next door type. Won a few comps and did a bit of strategy, but nothing amazing. This came after a Jun win. Maggie - Definitely not nice. She was determined and focused and almost a cult leader when it came to her alliance. This came after a Drew win. Boogie - Again, not exactly nice. A more strategic player, although Will did most of that strategising for him. Dick - An asshole. Won comps, had a kind of strategy. Adam - I can't even remember what this bumbling fool did. Nothing much I think. And this guy won after Dick! Dan - One of the best strategic players of all time, but also one of the nicest players ever, he never talked trash or bad mouthed people, he kept it strictly game. He won after Adam. And now Jordan - A sweet girl, no real strategy to speak of. Won a few comps when she needed to, beat just an incredibly unlikable, horrible person. This win comes after Dan. Next year we'll probably get an unlikable person winning after three likable winners (not sure if Adam was that likable, he certainly wasn't hated though). Each season is different and the jury votes on different things. Jordan winning BB11 means nothing for BB12. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under me tin hat.
Posts: 11,925
|
Quote:
And you can still make trustworthy deals/alliances; Jeff/Jordan would never have betrayed each other... they're just less common nowadays, which is understandable. As time goes on, the game evolves, and different strategies are required.
But I see your's and other's points that each season will be different, and Dan last year was a very strategic player (arguably the best). I just fear that we will see less of the more cunning strategy that we have seen in the past if the norm becomes not to keep your word/never have any intention of keeping it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 11,345
|
Quote:
I don't think the winner has any revelance to how next season will be played. All seasons are different.
I mean just look at the winners: Dr Will - Invented the strategic game play of BB. Ruthless, cut throat and deceptive. Lisa - Sweet, down to earth girl, didn't do a whole lot of strategy, road coat-tails. She beat one of the games best strategic players ever in Danielle. This came after a Will win remember. Jun - Definitely cut throat, deceptive, created the art of perfect floating. Was a bitch at times too. This came after a Lisa win. Drew - A 'nice' guy. Your typical American boy next door type. Won a few comps and did a bit of strategy, but nothing amazing. This came after a Jun win. Maggie - Definitely not nice. She was determined and focused and almost a cult leader when it came to her alliance. This came after a Drew win. Boogie - Again, not exactly nice. A more strategic player, although Will did most of that strategising for him. Dick - An asshole. Won comps, had a kind of strategy. Adam - I can't even remember what this bumbling fool did. Nothing much I think. And this guy won after Dick! Dan - One of the best strategic players of all time, but also one of the nicest players ever, he never talked trash or bad mouthed people, he kept it strictly game. He won after Adam. And now Jordan - A sweet girl, no real strategy to speak of. Won a few comps when she needed to, beat just an incredibly unlikable, horrible person. This win comes after Dan. Next year we'll probably get an unlikable person winning after three likable winners (not sure if Adam was that likable, he certainly wasn't hated though). Each season is different and the jury votes on different things. Jordan winning BB11 means nothing for BB12. I guess you are right and Jordan's win won't make much difference next season...or even...the new HGs might try and get out anyone who seems 'nice but dim' right off the bat because of it! I just know if I were going to be on the show next year I'd play it Jordans way. A summer holiday with 500k at the end, nice lol |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 18,959
|
I think you're right in that next years housemates may target the Jordan types early on.
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 40
|
Adam really wasn't liked by the public if I am thinking correctly. He was on the "idiots who think they are the good guys but are despised" side. Although I did love it where Natalie and Sharon were on the block and Adam & Ryan decided to split the vote and make Sheila break the tie. Also after his "retard" comment he was hated by the public.
In recent years I think the housemates have kinda forgot about floaters/weak players. In All-Stars the HMs targeted floaters and S6 quickly but forgot Chilltown. And James not learning from BB6 also paved an easy road for Chilltown. I think that the housemates next year will target more weak players next year but who knows. Another Jordan/Lisa win could happen because all the strong players may evict themselves again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,385
|
I just think it may make the inevitable Jordan type housemate look a bit more dangerous this time around.
At the end of the day, each BB winner is ultimately decied by how the jury votes - you can have one like BB2 or 10 where they vote for the better player, or one like this year, where they vote for the personally. There werent that many big strategists this year - they all seemed to be looking at next week, nobody seemed to be looking ahead in the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under me tin hat.
Posts: 11,925
|
Quote:
There werent that many big strategists this year - they all seemed to be looking at next week, nobody seemed to be looking ahead in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 388
|
Ill put down the winners as I see them as well :P
Dr.Will Great strategist. Very ruthless, cut-throat and deceptive. Remember that this was before the POV was introduced however so a fair amount of his strategies cant be transferred over (though he still made it work in All Stars, losing out because of a slight oversight) Lisa Laid low, avoided conflict and avoided any chance of getting a target placed on herself. If it wasnt for the jury seeing the videos of Danielle railing on them in the DR, Danielle would have won. Jun Another ruthless winner, this time mixing both the strategies of Lisa (Laying low, staying under the radar and floating along alliances) and Dr Will (Making right alliances and backstabbing often). Drew No, I think he did a fair amount of strategy here. He successfully manipulated more than a fair few people, helped push Holly/Jase and Scott out of the door while keeping Diane/Cowboy at his near beck and call. Maggie Very good at staying low. However unlike Lisa and Jun, she actively took control and was responsible pretty much directly for every single action made by both her alliance AND the other alliance (with the exception of Eric being booted). Boogie Rode a fair bit of Will's coat-tails but managed to implement enough strategy of his own to keep afloat. Dick Made the right alliances at the right time. Managed (along with his daughter) to be a competition machine, winning many times. He was a total asshole though. Adam After a rocky first eviction, nearly being booted. He laid low, throwing competitons and securing alliance till the time was needed, then he upped his game and made F2 by sheer force and making sure there was always one person weaker than him or Ryan. (In his case: his alliance partner Sheila) Dan Great gameplay. Ruthless and manipulative HOWEVER also being a very nice guy earning himself a very well deserved unanimous Jury vote. Jordan Jordan was carried often either by Jeff or by others who labelled her as easily disposable. She was lucky to pull off three wins EXACTLY when she needed it and was very nice as well. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:55.



I just fear that we will see less of the more cunning strategy that we have seen in the past if the norm becomes not to keep your word/never have any intention of keeping it in the first place.