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

Re:Mod me down, but....

[simoniker]

Again, this is worth mentioning - you can prevent the subpage games stories from appearing on your page by turning off 'collapse sections' in your preferences. You'll still see the important, mainpage ones.

There are less posts on the games posts because you don't see these posts on the main Slashdot front page as default - we realize they may be a little specialized in terms of interest.

Re:Big Brother differences

[Rudeboy777]

It's important to point out that the first season played under the "British" rules was boring as hell and ratings were in the toilet. Since this new format was adopted it is much more of a success.