Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26714162-20171221055839/@comment-27927773-20180116225733

Yeah...no. I like the game of Survivor as a social game that needs strategy and cunning. Not as a "win immunity or make a fire and get a ticket to the final tribal" game. I'll admit, it's not fun seeing a really likable player reach the end, only to be snubbed just short of the finale, like Spencer in Cagayan, Keith in San Juan del Sur, Kelley in Cambodia, or David in MvG, to name recent examples. And often times, once they're gone, it becomes really obvious who's winning the season (did anyone seriously doubt that Tony, Natalie, Jeremy, and Adam were winning their respective seasons after the people I mentioned were voted out?). But I would much rather prefer that they won by playing the best game, not by being better at making fire (assuming the winner would've been voted out at F4). Granted, had the castaways known about this, they would've likely pushed harder to get the biggest threat ousted at the final five instead of the final four (which I bet next season's cast will do, unless they weren't told at the start). If they continue this twist past Ghost Island the biggest threats/the most memorable castaways will just get voted out at the final five. This twist has perhaps a one-time use at best, and only a chance of working out well, which it didn't in HvHvH. I seriously hope it isn't implemented in any fanon series, but to each their own, I guess.