What Big Brother Teaches Us About Game Design

Thanks to Skotos.net for their article discussing why the TV show Big Brother 4 is an example of good game design, and what we can learn from it. It's pointed out that "a group of n/2 (rounded down) + 1 people can dominate the game", if well-organized, but "the producers of Big Brother have made changes which dramatically reduce the power of a majority", including the ability to veto potential evictees. But it's argued the jury of previously evicted players voting on the final two contestants means "...if you backstab someone or betray them, even if it gets you further in the game, it could prevent you from winning." Is there a perfect strategy for winning Big Brother, and if not, is the concept of "unworthy winners" dissatisfying?

Comments

Mod me down, but....

[DesScorp]

....the fact that these stories about obscure game design theories usually end up with less than a dozen posts ought to tell the editors something. Nobody cares but the editors. There are far better things to cover. Do so, please.

Don't believe me? Go back and see what the average number of posts for gaming stories is...

And yes, I know I can prevent game stories from appearing on my page. But I don't want to completely ignore it. There are some topics on games that I might find interesting. Slashdot just hasn't been posting any. Again, usually it's about some obscure design theory that no one but the editors gives a shit about.

Too many game stories. Post response numbers don't lie....