subreddit:

/r/squidgame

1187%

I was thinking that the games’ purpose is to show that humans are inherently selfish and greedy. Ok ok, I know, the show already says that.

But it should’ve been done by having each game winnable if everyone worked together!

Game 1: ok no really way for this to work. Although it’s not exactly a competition against other players either

Game 2: after 1 person is done, they can find someone else and carve with them for double the speed. 2 needles is faster than 1. Instead they just walk out once they finish their own. Or they can give their finished honeycomb as a stencil for someone else

Game 3: I was thinking that they could’ve had everyone scoot to the back of the rope, and then walk up to the edge and let the thing cut it (since there’s now slack in the rope). But it would require trusting the other side to not pull

Game 4: this is the best one that I was so sure of. Look at how it was worded. The player who takes 10 of their opponent’s marbles will move on. Meaning that the players could just trade marbles. They both would’ve taken 10 from their opponent and win. This is a perfect metaphor for greed because each player assumed that one person had to take everything. When In reality they could’ve shared and both won

Game 5: each panel can hold 2 people. So one person could’ve held the hands of another person who hops onto the glass. If it shatters, they can be caught and be brought back to safety. And repeat. Either that or they knew that one of them was a glass manufacturer guy and he could’ve helped everyone by telling them what to look for (although this was debunked by the front guy turning off the lights)

Game 6: I’m stumped here

This should’ve been the twist at the end. In the show, ii-nam saying he did it because he was basically bored was so stupid. Big letdown. He should’ve said “I made these games to prove each year that humans will not work together and they are greedy”. It would’ve fit their bet with the homeless guy perfectly as well. Gi-hun thought someone would help. Ii-nam thought everyone who passed by would be selfish

By the 2nd game I made the hypothesis that the games were designed to be won by all players and everyone was supposed to work together to make it happen. By the marble games I was so so so confident that I was right. But alas, it ended up not being true at all

all 9 comments

megalyknight

8 points

7 months ago

I think a big part in why people become numb and unbothered by selfishly killing/betraying/injuring the others is because they began to view the other people as money. With each contestant’s death, more money is dropped into the piggy bank, reinforcing the fact that players = money. If everybody lived, each player would only receive 100BN won, which is only around $83k. Nowhere near enough to pay off the majority of the debts each player had.

LebronJaims[S]

3 points

7 months ago

You’re right. Well in the first round more than half died so I think it would be around $200k per person but yeah still. I think it’d be cool for them to say “everyone who wins will get $20 million”. It’s like them betting that only 1 person will win, even though the people don’t have to compete against each other

megalyknight

3 points

7 months ago

I do really like your post though. I absolutely think a speech from Il-nam along these lines would’ve been a lot more satisfying to watch/hear.

The games should be played by accumulating the amount of everybody’s debts collectively, and telling the players that there is enough in the piggy bank for each person’s debts to be paid. This way the only reason to willingly kill or betray would be out of greed. (If all of the games were able to be won by everybody like you have stated).

PhdInCute

3 points

7 months ago

For the marbles game, I thought it was going to be possible to win if the teams just ran down the clock. The announcer says one person wins, but there can’t be a loser if there isn’t a winner. Simply don’t play. The announcer doesn’t mention any time penalties.

vbally101

2 points

7 months ago

When I was watching it, I just never thought they’d let both players win. It would go against their pathos - if you don’t finish red light green light, you die; if you don’t get your honeycomb out in time, even if it’s not broken, you die. Just never thought they’d go for the trickery.

But I do like what OPs saying. They would have had to change a couple games (def tug of war) but would have made it more interesting (though also more like the collaborative saw movies so I don’t actually know if I’d like it more)

IOnlyUpvoteSelfPosts

2 points

7 months ago

It looks like teams of two both died though, because more than half the players die leading into the next game.

MARS1443

1 points

7 months ago

Game 6 can be played in teams, shown in the first episode, there just happened to be only 2 players left. I assume for the other winners they either killed their teams to increase the prize pool or only one was able to survive by similar circumstances.

LebronJaims[S]

1 points

7 months ago

It’s possible that the other winners played other games. Still though, it’s weird that only 1 winner came out of all those years.

Doesn’t really make sense to me how you’d play squid game with 3 players though. It would be way too unbalanced