There’s something deeply unsettling about watching two brilliant shows get trapped in the same cultural conversation. Alice in Borderland and Squid Game have become the twin stars of survival game television, locked in an endless dance of comparison that often misses what makes each series remarkable in its own right. We’ve become so obsessed with declaring a winner that we risk losing sight of why these stories resonate so deeply with audiences worldwide. The truth is, both shows tap into universal anxieties about modern society, but they approach their critiques from fundamentally different angles.
What fascinates me most about this ongoing debate is how it reveals our own cultural biases about storytelling. Squid Game presents its critique through brutal simplicity—childhood games twisted into deadly competitions, reflecting how capitalism reduces human life to disposable commodities. The games are straightforward, the rules are clear, and the horror comes from watching ordinary people navigate impossible choices. Meanwhile, Alice in Borderland operates on a completely different wavelength, embracing complexity and puzzle-solving as its primary narrative engine. The games aren’t just about survival; they’re elaborate mental challenges that require strategic thinking and collaboration.
The character development in both series speaks volumes about their philosophical underpinnings. Squid Game gives us Seong Gi-hun, a relatable everyman who survives through a combination of luck and the kindness of others. His journey feels grounded in emotional realism, making his eventual victory bittersweet rather than triumphant. Alice in Borderland’s Arisu represents a different archetype—the brilliant but disconnected gamer who finds purpose through extreme circumstances. Where Squid Game explores how desperation shapes character, Alice in Borderland examines how intelligence and adaptability can become survival tools in their own right.
Perhaps the most telling difference lies in how each show handles its central mystery. Squid Game keeps the focus tightly on the players and their immediate struggles, with the organization behind the games remaining largely inscrutable. This choice reinforces the show’s themes about systemic oppression—the faceless nature of the power structure makes it all the more terrifying. Alice in Borderland, by contrast, gradually peels back layers of its supernatural premise, inviting viewers to solve the puzzle alongside the characters. Both approaches work beautifully for their respective narratives, yet we keep trying to force them into the same critical framework.
As both franchises continue to evolve, I find myself hoping we can move beyond the reductive ‘which is better’ conversation. The real value in having multiple survival game narratives isn’t about declaring a champion, but about exploring different facets of the human condition under extreme pressure. These shows aren’t competitors—they’re complementary explorations of how people respond when everything is on the line. The fact that we’re still debating their merits years after their initial releases proves that both have tapped into something essential about our collective anxieties and aspirations.
About the Author
