Why Season Two of "Squid Game" Feels Different

A psychological explanation for the changes in the popular show.

Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

Everybody is talking about Squid Game again. The original series dropped more than three years ago and it quickly became a real global sensation as well as the most watched series on Netflix. That was extremely surprising then, as a completely unknown series with no international stars and with no major promotions or ad campaigns took the world by storm. The premise of the show was simple: There is a secret game with more than 400 contenders, all desperate and all in debt. The winner takes the large cash prize; everyone else dies. The rounds of the game consist of versions of widely known children’s games.

Now, season two is here. And it seems to make an even more significant splash. In the first week, more than 68 million people watched it, by far the highest opening week of any TV show. The success of season two is obviously less surprising than the success of the original. There are very few potential viewers who had not been aware of this global phenomenon before the December 26 release date. And the ad campaign was brutal. Still, the fact that season two is still as successful as it is needs an explanation. As is the fact that it did leave quite a few viewers and critics somewhat disappointed.

I argued back in 2021 in this publication that the explanation is psychological. The premise of the show is a pretty obvious critique of our competition-obsessed capitalist society. The poor compete in a game of life and death quite literally for survival. And all this to entertain the super-rich. At a time when social inequality keeps on increasing, this kind of reflection on social injustice in jungle capitalism clearly sells.

But there have been many films and TV shows about social inequality and on the face of it, it’s difficult to see why of all of these, Squid Game is the one that blew up. What makes the original series of Squid Game stand out is that it deliberately encourages the viewer to have a twofold attitude to the plot. On the one hand, we identify with the characters, we feel for them when they fail, and we are jubilant when they succeed. But, and that's the crucial twist, on the other hand, we also identify with the VIPs who are introduced after the first couple of episodes: the super-rich spectators who bet money on the contestants, much like one does at a horse race. We, on our couch in our living room, watching these people compete, are, in some ways, in a very similar position to these VIPs: We're observers of cruelty.

The fact that the show constantly reminds us of our observer status is a real novelty of the show and helps us to distance ourselves a bit from the fate of the competitors. This double perspective is the key to the success of Squid Game. Switching back and forth between these two perspectives is what makes it easier to combine caring about the social message and at the same time get all wrapped up in the story.

And that is exactly what is lost in season two. There is no double perspective and there are no constant reminders of our observer status. That makes it easier to get wrapped up in the story and this, paradoxically, makes the social message feel more heavy-handed. The contestants vote after every round whether they want to continue and the minority has to accept the majority position (to continue the game), which is a fairly obvious commentary of the problem of democracy.

In season two, the outsider point of view is missing and it was exactly this outsider point of view that prevented the original series from feeling too close to the bone. The original series struck a delicate balance between the escapist appeal and the personal involvement. In season two, the personal involvement won out.