Game Players...good or bad thing to be ?
 

Andy very upset at being seen as a game player. Personally I think it's exactly why it's called a game show. Two main things I want from a housemate are to either make me laugh or to be a really good game player or ideally both.
BB should stipulate on their survey if it's a negative or a positive question. Or better yet, have two options..." Who do you like because they are a game player or who do you dislike because they are a game player ? "

It depends how far you will sink as a game player ,BB is a game, but to try to win by any means ,even sinking to dirty tactics is wrong

Ryan being called Fake and Alex being called Forgettable are insulting....being a game player is no where close to being as bad and IMO is actually an achievement when done well and with respect.

But lets face it Ryan is fake :joker: and I will never forget Alexs stunning eyes and smile :blush2:

It depends if you're trying to fool both the public and the housemates then it's bad imo but if you're someone like victor and are honest in the diary room then that's fine imo. And also depends how much you're playing the game if it's 24/7 talking about game and you have nothing else to offer then to the show then you're boring and pointless in a game like big brother tbh, just go on deal or no deal.

They are all playing a game and as you say it is a game, some play by the rules others dont... Some have ensured Andy has that title so it distracts others from seeing their own game plan and also it keeps them in longer as been a 'gameplayer' in the house is seen as a negative.

:clap1:

Oh absolutely !! A good game player is not someone who crosses decency and behaves like a moron. Those type of game players are favoured because of their lack of skills not their intelligene.

I don't even think Andy is a game player if I'm honest

First of all lets get one thing straight, BB is not a game, it is a reality SHOW which has a hidden competitor nature attached to it. It is not a game because they don't get points or prizes for winning anything to do with skill.

The show has a prize for the last survivor so it enters the realms of a popularity contest and to win this money, they must survive they don't need to win anything, just survive the publics vote which is based on popularity and morality.

If you attach a label of game to it all then the way the game is played is more important than the end result. If someone offers fun and frivolity along with managing bot to piss the GBP off, they have ''played the game the right way'' If they feel the need to act, hamm it up, lie and cheat their way to the top by fooling the GBP, then they have won by default and therefore the label of gameplayer can be used.

Its not the winning, its the way you won that makes a great winner. Aaron played the game the best and came out a successful winner and liked but people that have won by scamming the public were winners of the show but losers in real life.

If you are good at it, then it's good. If bad, not.

andy is not a game player, if he was, he wouldn't put himself on firing line all the time by speaking honest truths.

Well I don't think he's dishonest or tells lies or is pretending to be anything other than himself ....but I think he has an eye for discrepancies in people and is skilled at recognising fakes and I think he uses those skills really well...which is why Hughie can't cope around him and why Lateysha has kept her distance since realising she can't match him.
I also like that he is not a coward and is really strong. They all pay the game but he stands toe to toe with people and tells it straight.
He plays the game well. Others are crap at it. And some play it at gutter level.

I would never answer a survey question about the biggest game player, I would only answer who is the best or the worst game player.

But going on the posts on here it seems that it's mostly seen as a negative question. A concept that I don't really get.

Andy is socially inept and he possesses no inter personality skills. He is a bit of a loner and allows rules and issues of morality to rule his own life. Sadly others see his style as boring and extremely unlikable. In a word hes a jerk, end of.

I don't think it's a bad thing if you can outright admit you are one but the ones that pretend they aren't and then act like a victim when they're called out on it are the worst.

Oh, end of....his masters voice :joker::joker:

Andy is not a jerk ...and being isolated by the others makes him lonely not a loner....not same thing at all.

He has survived endless rounds of eviction despite housemates attempts to get rid of him. He has forged friendships with people who are very different to himself. He has gone against the status quo and the house to stand by his convictions and has found favour with ex housemates who've now seen what we have. In my opinion that makes him very adept and skilled in finding his way through an environment that's made more easy for the Ryans of this world than it is for the Andys of this world. Not remotely, to quote you, boring, unlikeable or a jerk.

If game player is a negative thing in the eyes of most then I would say he isnt then because I only see mostly positive traits in Andy.
But in terms of surviving the big brother experience I would say he's made a better fist of it then most because he hasn't thrown his principles away in the process.
He leaves with a life time commitment from the person he loves and with his integrity....if he goes this week he leaves not at the decision of the public...so he is a winner what ever the outcome....the opposite of what you term as one of life's losers.

IYO

It's a good thing but unfortunately BBUK is one of the easiest gameshows on television due to its format. Here's how you win: be fortunate enough to have a penis, have the added bonus of being attractive, befriend all of your housemates and be a 'nice guy' and thus never be nominated, sit back and never utter a word all series long, and come the final you'll be voted the winner. It's counterproductive nonsense but if you're serious about winning it's pretty easy to achieve.

There's nothing wrong with fooling the public either so long as you're entertaining and contributing to the show in the process. In fact I'd say that's a pretty stellar game you're playing if you're able to con the viewers, you deserve all credit for that.

So yes game playing is good but the crucial thing is how entertaining you make it. It's just a shame that the format isn't set up to enable games to be played in the way that they should be.

:joker::joker::joker:

Like your blue print of the credentials that count :laugh: and so true sadly.

I also think if you can con the public you're very good but it's a rare thing to happen. And yes it has to be entertaining to at least a good percentage of the viewers, which a lot of them this year have been.

2

It's a good thing as long as the contestant is interesting, and they don't Neda/Aubry the season where every good contestant goes at the hands of them, or that they aren't the only gameplayers in the series.

I like and admire HMs that play the game within the house against HMs.

I dislike HMs that play a game and fool the public.

This is why I did like Andrew, but I don't like Jason.

Can't blame any of them for keeping it a secret these days. Nearly every week quotes housemates have said from the diary room or to someone else are being used in tasks. You might as well give up there and then if a quote admitting to being a game player gets revealed to the rest of them

Non of them are game players, with the current set up it's just not possible, you can try and influence a few situations, but it's quantum maths add into the mix BB stitching everyone up with revealing diary room secrets.

Andy is playing the only game he knows, he's naturally machiavellian, scheming at every turn. He even managed to suppress the inner elation of being immune for the rest of the week. Incidentally, it was so predictable that if they could, BB would engineer a situation where he could be saved. They would have known that he would be targeted and then took a calculated risk on a 50-50 choice, there would be every chance that he would be saved.

Depends. IF its an obvious game plan like Jasons then its so easy to spot I kind of resent him for even trying to get away with such a game plan. Alex is a much more subtle game plan and one that I can thoroughly get behind.