1. Both books take place in the future, in a world with a very messed up and corrupt government (albeit they are different kinds; the author of Battle Royale has said that he fine tuned the government afterwards to fit the premise and it wasn't all that important to the novel, he just needed a relevant setting. I do not know what Collins' intention was. Also, the similarities are primarily between her initial book, and the two after that have little in common with Battle Royale).
2. Both take place in a remote location that has "man-made" conditions constructed by the people in charge. That is to say, it isn't entirely a free-for-all. In Battle Royale, there are announcements saying when zones become "restricted" which force the characters to move. In the Hunger Games, the conditions are less obvious, and I'd have to re-read the two Game scenarios to remember exactly what they were. Collins was more future/science fiction oriented and she could get a little more creative, I think. So they'd have, say, timed mutated animals, or poisonous gas or lava or earthquakes that happen at specific times, forcing the characters to move and preventing them from hiding out. Although the details are different, the conditions are there for the same purpose in both books.
3. Both announce when people have died. Battle Royale announces the names of the deceased in 6 hour intervals. Damn, I need to reread the Hunger Games because I can't exactly remember how they work. I believe that there are shots of some sort that occur after or near someone's death (so no names, and not in intervals).
4. Both have "bets" by officials and citizens watching of sorts (in Battle Royale, it's just officials and people in charge of supervising, and in the Hunger Games it's mostly implied through the citizens of the Capitol who are tuning into the Games as if it is a reality television show). Betting aside, point 4 mostly emphasizes that both books have characters monitored. In the Hunger Games, it's both cameras and audio; in Battle Royale, it's audio only. Bringing us to point 5...
5. Both books have points that focus on certain characters "acting" or watching what they say for the benefit of those monitoring them, albeit for different reasons. Katniss in the Hunger Games attempts to manipulate the audience to trick them into thinking there is a love story so she'll get sent more items, and story-wise to make the ending more believable. Both books, however, have this sort of manipulation be crucial for their endings: Katniss uses the cameras and manipulation to end up saving both herself and Peeta (for two survivors in a romantic relationship). Shogo uses the audio and manipulation to end up saving Shuya and Noriko (for two survivors in a romantic relationship). Their intentions and methods differ but the underlying theme is the same and an important similarity.
There are other similarities as well, but some of those aren't that important, as they'd likely be in any book of this sort (weapons, limited resources, trust issues, groups being created and then dismantled, etc.) The Hunger Games have weapons and food distributed differently (they have to run out in the beginning and find them, and all contestants are released at once) whereas Battle Royale supplies packs to each student (although the weapons themselves are random). Battle Royale also focuses on guns, whereas the Hunger Games do not.
There are also definitely scenes in each book that are very reminiscent of each other (some more than others). The fox-girl who sneakily followed people in order to survive in Hunger Games was essentially the same sort of character as Sho, and both met their demise by putting too much trust in those they were stalking: Sho assumed Kazuo wouldn’t go into a forbidden zone, and the fox-girl assumed that the berries she had eaten were not poisonous. Sakura and Kazuhiko’s suicides somewhat reminded me of how Peeta and Katniss attempted to escape at the end.
In the end, though, I think the main difference ends up being the focus. The Hunger Games are really a lot less violent and slightly less likely to tug at your heartstrings. The only character I mourned for was Rue. Catniss had a very logical, almost cold-blooded but not sociopathic way to her that reminded me of Shogo, but since the Hunger Games was written in third-person you're never questioning why she does what she does, really (which to me, made Shogo much more interesting). Since it was written in first-person, attention was only really given to the characters Catniss cared about, or was exposed to. Battle Royale attempts to at least somewhat flesh out a large amount of characters before killing them. In context, though, it makes sense. In the Hunger Games, Catniss is thrown together with characters she has never met before and doesn't really know (aside from Peeta, from her district). Battle Royale is about being thrown into a free-for-all with people you've grown up with and personally know (or do you really?).
Battle Royale seems more psychologically interesting, more poignant and more about the situation at hand and what it can do to you. The Hunger Games has those same themes but to a lesser extent: they're in the book, but they're pushed aside somewhat more to make room for a more fleshed out world, secondary characters outside of the games themselves, and a plot that extends beyond the games and moves onto rebelling against the corrupt government that created them.
Which book is better? That really depends on what you enjoy. My favorite parts in the Hunger Games were essentially those that were similar to Battle Royale. Because of that, I ended up enjoying Battle Royale more. Either way, I do think certain Hunger Game fans should calm down. “It’s nothing like Battle Royale! They barely have anything in common!” Well, sorry, but they have quite a bit in common. Does that make Hunger Games bad? No. Does that mean Collins copied Battle Royale, or knew about the book beforehand? Not really. I can understand Collins’ frustration with the accusations and her attempts at coming up with alternative inspirations. Truth be told, a lot of what influences us as writers might become forgotten over time, sift into our subconscious and even come up as “new” and “unique” ideas without us even knowing what originally inspired us, if anything at all. I enjoyed both books and I love this niche, so I will personally welcome any new books that use this type of plot.
200
200
100
