The conceptual and contextual notion of the game of survivor provides viewers and game players with the paradox of how individuals navigate constructed public spheres and whether this is their reality or fiction. This eventuates into the paradigm that the game of survivor is a publicised public sphere conveying a certain type of era or period of time while attributes of greed and maliciousness are romanticised. Individuals may act differently due to these added characteristics in the game of survivor, however is this the same way they would act when not faced with decisions that could lead to a grand prize? Would individuals let others fall for their own gain in the real world? Are the actions people take when confronted with these emotions their true demons acting?
I love the game of survivor as it manifests a thirst for winning, a thirst for enjoyment and a thirst for gameplay that people enjoy. It allows myself to see multiple different social circles and public spheres form, separate and implode on each other, and analysing this is even more so interesting. What goes into making a decision is more than just a challenge, more than just having an alliance with someone, it comes from an individuals core, their own weaknesses, prejudices and anxieties.
It is the game of wits, strength and surviving and I just will never be able to get enough of it. Maybe it is due to the games hunger games like nature of twenty going in and one coming out, or is the encouraged Machiavellian nature that players explore and experiment with. I myself am enthralled in this show and it’s production.
Anyone want a conversation with me about Game Changers? Comment down below.
~krisesandchrosses~
krisesandchrosses 