between games and movies

Games, this medium was far away from me half a year ago. As a "model student" along the way, it seems that he is limiting himself to the principle of not crossing the thunder pond, which looks like a poppy. Actually, it's really boring. Therefore, as a medium that I just started to contact in half a year, I really have a deep understanding of this medium without full confidence. This is like a vast ocean again, and I, just standing on its shore, even if I look up into the distance, I still can't compare to the farther edge that I haven't seen yet.

So, if I am delusional and confident to say that the medium of games must be a narrative medium that is bound to rise, I am afraid I am fooling myself. Even though games have only emerged as a narrative medium for more than 30 or 40 years, there are so many talented people involved in it, and I, a person who can't figure out how much I am capable of, can really contribute to this field? This is my greatest fear.

Up to now, I have only learned about the two games "Call of Duty" and "Silent Hill" by watching the game videos. To be honest, when I saw these two games, I felt like a great The ancient Chinese ancestors who were closed to the country. Unexpectedly, the current game can already do this level.

However, when I was watching the movie "Silent Hill", I did think that a game work such as "Silent Hill", which is called a masterpiece in the game field, can only judge B-level movies under the theme of the movie. It's the truth, at least it's hard to enter the hall of elegance. What I can think of are two questions. First, whether the medium itself determines what kind of subject matter will be called the mainstream. Of course, this should also be related to the material carried by the media itself. In the era of bamboo slips, prose, poetry, etc. may have prevailed. When the paper industry developed, novels were also called mainstream. So maybe the rules of competition in the movies don't necessarily apply to the game world? Second, is there still room for me to develop? Or, or is it that I haven't seen enough, that there is already an exploration of games as artistic experiences? I suddenly thought, can games as art be compared to installation art and other types of art that pursue on-the-spot experience? If the pursuit of installation art and other pursuits can be called art that can bring instant experience to the audience, can games also find their legitimate status as art here? Of course, I'm not the kind of person who has to call games or anything else art, which seems silly to me. As long as each medium taps into its own broader function, I think that's enough.

And let me expect, perhaps, "Silent Hill" is just a stage of the game as a new narrative art, not the pinnacle. There is still enough space for him to develop.

View more about Silent Hill reviews