Do Video games use “Mise-en-scène” like films? What is “Mise-en-scène” for video games?

I will begin this topic by analysing “Mise en scene” within films. For films good “mise en scene” suggests hidden depth within the story and metaphor from all aspects placed within the camera shots. The best example of “Mise-en-scene” is the final scene of the “The good, the bad and the ugly” which in my opinion is one of the best films ever made. Here is the clip of the final scene of “The good, the bad and the ugly” if you have the time to watch, as it is quite long but it’s so beautifully shot and paced:

Even if you haven’t seen the film and you don’t know the overall story. From this scene alone you can figure out small fractions of story/narrative from the suggestive filmic language with the close ups of their faces creating tension and the way they walk slowly and cautiously far apart within the circle from these shots telling the viewer a lot about the story and the characters. The viewer can see obviously these three cowboys are enemies with nothing to lose who are about kill each other within a quiet graveyard in no man’s land and they are all after something with great greed, the viewer can discover all that and that’s all you need to know to follow the story anyway. That’s creativity defined film making with a good use of “mise en scene” using engaging and suggestive filmic language and editing adding so much depth to otherwise uneventful gunfight with only one “Bang”. You are probably wondering how this has anything to do with games, as games don’t include such aspects of editing or filmic language in them although I believe games actually do to a certain extent with a different approach on this subject.

More or less every 3D game has a form of “mise en scene” especially within adventure/action games with fixed camera positions (player has no control over the camera) with games like the old “Resident evil” games, “God of war” games and “Alone in the dark” games, etc. Each section of theses games are choreographed with a precise camera angles with carefully placed objects/scenery to create a certain mood/situation to try to psychically manipulate the player’s actions (what the player does)/feelings. A good example of this would be near the beginning of the first “Resident Evil” game, walking down the corridor with big windows which teases the player that something will jump out through those windows at any second, as the player knows it will happen but when will it? It isn’t just the fact that the windows are placed as a main focus within camera shot but how the camera shot is angled in a way which makes the corridor feel empty and claustrophobic making the location feel lifeless and spooky adding to build up of predictable set piece piece . That is how the emotion of tension/fear is built within the player; designers have manipulated the player’s feelings. You could argue that the “Resident Evil” games has to have controlled precise fixed camera angles to have strong “mise en scene” or for it to be frightening like a film, (filmic language and editing as the player walks around the level cutting to different camera angles) yeah sure I agree it’s a certain factor that adds to the game but other games have strong “mise en scene” without the use of fixed camera angles like 3D Zelda games.

“Mise en scene” within games is more like psychology/maths than artistic aspiration as the designers have to enter the psyche of the player to figure out if the player is able to logically understand where to go/what to do within a given section of the game without causing the player to be confused or bored due to the lack of logical reasoning to the player’s mindset. Ok, sure this is real pea and carrot design stuff for a designer which can be defined via play testing/QA testing sections, but the designer needs to decide what “mindset” the player needs to be in, in order to complete this particular section designed by having previous sections to prepare the player psychotically for this particular section. For example, In Zelda, the player is always aware that he/she heading towards a boss fight via the “Mise en scene” mentally preparing the player for big battle via using the big key on the big door, etc but without this boss build up section of the game, the player may feel alienated/confused if boss just popped out of nowhere due to the actual “mindset” required to do a such task may be too extreme/diverse from previous section. In a way, this is pacing gameplay with psychology which you could see as “editing” and “storyboarding” in regards of “mise en scene” from films which is why I think they are similar in both mediums but yet very different.

Puzzles are sections of games that really benefit from “mise en scene” as there are many factors designers have to consider such as placement of objects/ clues for suggesting solutions, ways of the player to do the puzzle, etc. This is where the designer has to decide on the difficultly of the puzzle and how players sees the puzzle as I think the best puzzles in games are simple and obvious but yet easily overlooked as you are busy looking elsewhere when the solution is staring right at you. The challenge is the balancing with making the puzzle logical but at the same time not illogically leading to frustration or feel cheated by the puzzle that doesn't make sense, understanding “mise en scene” is a strong factor to creating puzzles as they are about making the player see/look at something differently or out of box thinking, a challenge with reward of discovery.

Well designed games always keep things varied and continuously make the player guess what’s going to happen next although this is ideal aim for any designer but it’s very tricky to achieve such a goal. Recently I’ve started reading a book called “Theory of fun for game design” written by Raph Koster and I recommend reading it for any games designer trainees like myself as it gives a solid insight about psychology about why we play games. In a nutshell, he says we (our brains) constantly demand to take in new patterns of information (learning) and games give us continuous amount of patterns (which is why we as humans all play games in some form) and once you learn a pattern, our brain becomes bored of that, and demand a new pattern, although if that appears as noise/messy, our brain refuses to understand it and becomes bored again. Solid games have to remain varied but not too adventurous/ experimental that players become confused and bored.

I’m explained enough about what “Mise en scene” is within video games but what defines good “mise en scene” within games? well I remember reading this interview from Shigeru Miyamoto a few years back where he said something along the lines of that when he designs his games, he imagines the player’s face as he/she plays each section of the game to define good and bad parts of the game with sad and happy emotions. That’s what I think is good “Mise en scene” is basically controlling and understanding the player’s feelings throughout the game.

In time, there will be different term for this type of “Mise en scene” as its pretty different from film “Mise en scene”. It will become a more apparent thinking attitude/process within the industry as more game designers develop this ideology as I feel its something that is often overlooked and sadly is lacking from the titles that need it the most for a success. If you look at all best games ever made they all contain solid understanding of this term. Who knows? Maybe I should invent a term for it and call it “pattern en scene” and write a book on it.

Written by: Jonesy