There’s something deeply compelling about watching ordinary people navigate extraordinary circumstances, particularly when their survival depends on playing children’s games with deadly stakes. This fascination has spawned two cultural phenomena that, while often compared, represent fundamentally different approaches to the same premise. Squid Game and Alice in Borderland have become the twin pillars of the death game genre, each offering a distinct lens through which we can examine human nature under pressure. What’s remarkable isn’t just their popularity, but how they’ve managed to capture different aspects of the same dark fantasy that seems to resonate with modern audiences worldwide.
Squid Game operates with the brutal simplicity of a fable, its power lying in how it transforms innocent playground activities into instruments of capitalist critique. The show’s genius isn’t in complex game mechanics but in how it uses straightforward rules to expose the raw dynamics of human desperation. Every game serves as a metaphor for systemic inequality, forcing characters into situations that reveal their true natures when stripped of societal niceties. The emotional weight comes from watching recognizable human connections form and fracture under pressure, making the violence feel less like spectacle and more like tragedy. This approach creates an immersive experience that lingers precisely because it feels uncomfortably plausible.
Alice in Borderland, by contrast, embraces its anime roots with a more fantastical approach that prioritizes intricate game design and supernatural mystery. Where Squid Game grounds itself in economic reality, Borderland plunges headfirst into surrealism, creating a world where the rules themselves become characters in the narrative. The show’s appeal lies in its puzzle-box quality—each game presents not just a physical challenge but an intellectual one, requiring viewers to engage with the mechanics alongside the characters. This creates a different kind of tension, one built on cerebral engagement rather than emotional identification, making it feel more like an interactive experience than a passive observation.
The comparison between these two shows often misses the point that they’re serving different purposes for different audiences. Squid Game succeeds as social commentary because it maintains its focus on character dynamics and systemic critique, using the games as vehicles rather than destinations. Alice in Borderland excels as speculative fiction because it leans into the wonder and terror of its premise, treating the games as elaborate set pieces that drive both plot and character development. Neither approach is inherently superior—they simply cater to different appetites within the same genre, much like how different subgenres of horror appeal to different fears.
What both shows ultimately reveal is our collective fascination with watching ordinary people navigate impossible choices. In an era of increasing economic uncertainty and social fragmentation, these death game narratives provide a strange comfort by externalizing our anxieties about survival in competitive systems. They allow us to safely explore questions about what we would sacrifice, who we would become, and what values we would cling to when everything is on the line. The popularity of both series suggests that we’re not just drawn to the violence or the games themselves, but to the fundamental human drama that unfolds when characters are pushed to their absolute limits.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this cultural moment is that we need both shows to satisfy our complex relationship with survival narratives. Squid Game gives us the harsh mirror of economic reality, while Alice in Borderland offers the escapism of fantastical challenges. Together, they represent the dual nature of our survival fantasies—the fear that we’re already playing deadly games within capitalist systems, and the desire to believe that if we were thrust into such circumstances, our wits and willpower might see us through. In the end, both shows succeed not despite their differences, but because of them, offering complementary visions of what happens when the games we play stop being games and start being matters of life and death.
About the Author
