Quote:
Originally Posted by winwin
Final 4 fire making has to go. It can have outsized influence on the game while punishing the people (like Charlie) who successfully argued for being taken to the end.
And maybe its a flaw in my own understanding of the game, but I don't think there's been a single satisfying winner since Tony shipped season 40. It seems like the game at its core is about managing your threat level. You need perception and reality to not be totally matched so your threat level doesn't get too high but it also can't be so wildly divergent otherwise the jury won't actually believe you when you pitch your case at the end. I thought Charlie threaded this needle about as well as anyone has done in recent memory and yet it seems he lost because he's an Ivy league educated would-be lawyer who didn't make fire and not a struggling salon owner who did.
It seems like the game at its core is about managing your threat level. - um, yeah, they say this every year, and Probst hammers it home constantly - you have to be aggressive but not too aggressive, you have to be nice but not too nice. That's what makes the game interesting.
Final 4 firemaking removal would make the situation worse TBH. It was implemented mostly because by the time they reach F4, there's usually a clear frontrunner, and 3 people working against them, so they have to win immunity or they're done - essentially exactly what happened at F5 this year.
Ironically - ideally Charlie should have been angling for a F3 of him, Ben and Liz. That he acquiesed to Ben's insane notion that Liz was any sort of threat was probably his biggest flaw in the game. Just say "Liz is a clueless delusional woman who will get zero votes. Kenzie and I are the biggest threats, you might as well ensure only one of us makes it there", then win fire, then sit vs Liz and Ben and win 8-0-0.