In the streaming landscape dominated by survival thrillers, two shows have captured global attention with their deadly game premises: Squid Game and Alice in Borderland. While fans passionately debate which series reigns supreme, I’ve come to realize that this comparison often misses what makes each show uniquely compelling. Both series explore the human condition under extreme pressure, but they approach this theme from fundamentally different philosophical angles that reveal more about our own viewing preferences than about any objective measure of quality.
Squid Game’s brilliance lies in its deceptive simplicity. The show uses childhood games as its deadly framework precisely because these activities are universally recognizable and seemingly innocent. This creates a powerful cognitive dissonance that forces viewers to confront how easily familiar comforts can transform into instruments of terror. The primary colors and basic geometric shapes aren’t just aesthetic choices—they’re visual metaphors for how capitalism reduces complex human lives to simple, disposable components. When we watch characters navigate these elementary challenges, we’re not just witnessing survival tactics; we’re seeing how modern society strips away our humanity layer by layer until only our most primal instincts remain.
Alice in Borderland, by contrast, embraces complexity as its central theme. The intricate puzzles and multi-layered games reflect the show’s deeper exploration of existential purpose and psychological transformation. Where Squid Game shows us people being broken down to their core, Alice in Borderland demonstrates how trauma can rebuild individuals into something new—sometimes better, sometimes worse. The characters don’t just survive; they evolve, with their experiences in the Borderlands fundamentally altering their understanding of themselves and their place in the world. This isn’t just about staying alive—it’s about discovering what makes life worth living in the first place.
The character development approaches reveal another crucial distinction between the two series. Squid Game gradually peels back layers of its characters through their interactions and flashbacks, creating a slow-burn emotional investment that pays off in devastating fashion. We come to understand these people as products of their circumstances, trapped in systems beyond their control. Alice in Borderland, however, uses the games themselves as catalysts for character transformation. The psychological impact isn’t just background motivation—it’s the driving force of the narrative, with characters changing so dramatically that they become almost unrecognizable from their pre-Borderland selves.
What fascinates me most about this comparison isn’t which show executes its premise better, but how our preferences reveal our own philosophical leanings. Those who prefer Squid Game often value social commentary and relatable character struggles, finding meaning in how external systems shape individual lives. Alice in Borderland enthusiasts tend to appreciate psychological depth and existential exploration, finding resonance in how extreme circumstances force internal transformation. Neither perspective is wrong—they simply reflect different ways of engaging with the fundamental question both shows pose: what does it mean to be human when survival becomes everything?
Ultimately, the Squid Game versus Alice in Borderland debate tells us less about television quality and more about what we seek from our entertainment. Do we want stories that hold up a mirror to society’s flaws, or narratives that explore the depths of individual consciousness? Both approaches have merit, and both shows succeed precisely because they commit fully to their distinct visions. Rather than crowning one as superior, perhaps we should appreciate how they complement each other—offering different lenses through which to examine the same terrifying, beautiful, and endlessly fascinating subject: ourselves under pressure.
About the Author
