Consumers and game developers alike want players to get into the game, suspend disbelief and have an immersive, entertaining experience. All Medal of Honor Airborne images © Electronic Arts. 

Ever since my daughter and I used to play the old Sierra Ent. games, I've yearned for a videogame experience that was a lot more cinematic: You know, one that not only immerses you in the story and the action like a movie, but also puts you in the center of it all and makes you the driving force that determines the outcome. For this to happen, I need quality realtime graphics, smart game cohorts, foes and crowds, and believable camerawork. More than that, I need to be able to suspend my disbelief just as I do in the movies. That's the gaming Holy Grail.

Electronic Arts is probably the biggest player in game development and they've attracted a lot of people from the film industry to help drive their game development process. I thought it would be an easy start, to chat up a few of their people, here and in Europe. I've also known Henry LaBounta, director of art, EA Games, who has a 20-year vfx background. LaBounta's been involved in many big movies from the Star Trek franchise to Artificial Intelligence: AI and more. He was even nominated for an Academy Award for Twister with now-fellow EA colleague Habib Zargarpour, who is senior art director. Clearly these were the guys to interview.

EA vet Henry LaBounta foresees his company using less non-interactive elements in games in the future.

But, the very first thing LaBounta said to me was, "If you're asking what are we doing to make our games more like cinema, then my answer may be very short -- games are an interactive experience, and, if anything, I think you'll see less non-interactive (cinematic) elements in them in the future. We're actually trying to find ways to keep them interactive while telling the story and trying to cut back on non-interactive/non-realtime cinematics, not add them." I had to agree, but clearly this was a matter of semantics. I think we're all talking about players getting into the game, suspending disbelief and having an immersive, entertaining experience.

Meanwhile, Zargarpour was a pioneer in film vfx and worked with Christophe Hery to build ILM's legendary pipeline. Zargarpour is one of those people who has talent in both artistry and technology, so he brings a lot film experience to the game design table. Note that LaBounta persuaded him to leave ILM and join him at EA. What's going on here? Obviously a lot of cinema know-how is migrating to the game world.

So I asked LaBounta to explain why he sees film and games as basically different entertainment genres: "In film there's a screenplay that kicks off the creative process of making a film. This is a well-defined process. That screenplay is a pretty good indication of where the film is going -- if it will be funny or scary or whatever. When we're developing games, the goal is 'fun' and unfortunately there isn't a well-established process for this. You have to play and feel something to know if it's fun."

Both LaBounta and Zargarpour discussed how complex the process of developing cutting edge games is. They talked about the enormous number of possible scenarios that need to be created and about improving game AI so that the game itself is more aware of what the player is doing and how to respond most effectively. Clearly, from my point of view, EA wants to re-stimulate burned out game players who are getting tired of sequel after sequel. Things need to be stepped up a notch and with better realtime render engines, better platforms and high-def DVD technology capable of handling mega game material. But all this talk about making games smarter didn't give me a vision of anything seminal.