Slashdot Mirror
The Game Design of Survivor
Wired has an article looking at a game designer working in a fairly unique space: reality television. Clive Thompson discusses the game design of the show Survivor , done mostly by the show's creator Mark Burnett. From the article: "While tweaking Survivor, he closely studied John Nash's game theory in order to better engineer the hysteria and emotional blowouts of each season's finale. 'What Nash's theory predicts is that whenever you have a group of people competing, they collude to squeeze one guy out, again and again, until there's only two guys left,' Burnett notes. 'Yet when there are only two of us left, we're surprised when one of us [screws] each other over. That's the fun part. It surprised John Nash himself, but it happens every time.'"
Next month, we'll see if Burnett can top these tricks, because he's launching his next game -- Gold Rush. He has hidden a dozen $100,000 stashes of gold (and one $1 million one) around the country, and sprinkled clues to their location inside various Time-Warner and CBS media properties such as Entertainment Weekly, the Netscape homepage, The Opie and Anthony Show and, of course, CBS' Survivor. Playing the game thus forces you to engage in a level of media synergy that leaves advertisers thrilled and me kind of dizzy.
This doesn't sound like a bright idea. If there is literally $1 million just laying around somewhere, I think we're going to end up with a few arrests for damage to property, plus some homicides before the game ends.
Anyway, back on topic. Nash created ways of describing so many behaviors but he did it so simply. In addition to his mind, his theories are beautiful. Whether competing in an outdoor gameshow or trying to pick up ladies at the club, game theory works wonders. (And no, I am not suggesting that you walk up to a girl and start talking to her about math. It doesn't work so well. Trust me.)
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
The article is written by a clueless engineer-journalist who thinks game theory and Survivor design have anything to do with video games. Think again. The whole point of game theory is that you have more than 1 person interacting strategically, it has nothing to do with how to make Quake or World of Warcraft fun. And as is seen very often on Slashdot, just because you're fairly smart and can write code or design electronics or study micro-organisms, you don't have a clue about anything else.
This interview mostly seems to be to promote Gold Rush, not that we should be surprised by that.
The bit about Survivor was interesting, but I would have liked to see more discussion about how they tried to change the game over the years to keep up with players who understood its nature.
The most fascinating thing about the first season of Survivor, for me, was that some of the players clearly understood what it would take to win, but many didn't. Starting with the second season and players having seen the game played out once, the game had a very different feel. Reading more about the things they tried to keep it still a thinking game yet unpredictable, what worked and what didn't, would have been cool.
Survivor is the one reality show I really like, and have consistently since the first season.
It works so well, in my opinion, because of the length of the "season" and the isolation of the players. It starts out, I assume, like any other reality show; with everyone acting awkward. The loud obnoxious person making an ass of him/her-self. The shy ones hiding out in the background. But over the weeks (the show lasts 39 days i think) as the field whittles down, more of eveyone's true personality comes out and eventually I think it gets as "real" as reality tv can get.
Add to that the fact that it requires a combination of physical and mental strength to win. Winning all of the challenges will certainly get you there, so will aligning with the proper people and really manipulating them. What comes off as bitchy/asshole-ish in other reality shows, really could win you the game in Survivor.
Unfortunately I still hear a lot of people lump Survivor in with any other reality show: The Bachelor, Big Brother, American Idol. But whatever, we don't all have to like the same stuff.
The concept and the format was created by a British production company. Mark Burnett simply purchased a license to it. The first show produced using this format was the Swedish Expedition Robinson.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
...describes my cube farm almost perfectly. The boss at any one time has one "favorite" and one "target." Every time the "target" gets fired or laid off, the rest of the work group gangs up on one individual and ensures that the individual ends up as the new "target."
I've been here two years and have seen this happen over and over again like clockwork.....I haven't been able to decide whether the boss, who is a big fan of Survivor, is creating this environment on purpose (through knowledge of Nash's theory) or if it's just a product of her being a crank.
God, I so need a new job.
Stay away from girls who don't like to talk about math, or whatever it is your into. The ones who like the same things are less likely to intoduce you to fractions like (1/2) down the road.
Realistically, they will have to implement the same policy - using tokens instead of leaving the actual prize on site. Given that this is purely a publicity promotion, they lose much of its value if nobody ever publicly claims a prize. If they force the participants to accept the prize at a network studio, they have the added opportunity to effectively promote the remainder of the game (which indirectly promotes the actual products).
This also prevents a huge problem: the chance that someone randomly finds the prize, without knowing its purpose (leaving the company at an even bigger loss).
There's no way they're burying all that gold.
This is not my sig.