Problems of Representation
More representation. Better representation. These seem to be the mantras of people who want “equality” in video games. If marginalized groups see more of themselves in a game they will enjoy the game more, or at least feel more a part of the gaming community. Right?
That does seem to be the working hypothesis of the industry, but I wonder if it is as simple as that. For me, while representation had gotten better, and is certainly better than nonexistence, it doesn’t really suggest equality the way that we would like it to. Generally, characters who are marginalized in real life remain marginalized in the game worlds that they are a part of, even if this is not directly stated by the characters in those worlds.
What these characters represent can also be very static. If a character is gay, they typically have known for a very long time, and they have no confusion about their sexuality. They are also the “gay character,” responsible for providing some lighthearted flamboyance. Their identity is fixed, and much of the rest of their personality, and role in the story, is designed around this identity category.
There is little use, it seems, in showing characters exploring their sexuality. Perhaps because exploring sexuality is not easily marketable, and makes characters less easily definable. As Adrienne Shaw puts it, “Groups are representable only insofar as they are marketable” (18). To this end, company’s have a vested interest in only showing the most easily identifiable, and least controversial, version of the person they are trying to portray. And I say person, not people, because there frequently tends to be one of each type of “different person.” In an RPG you might have one gay character, one lesbian character, perhaps two bisexual characters, and a majority of straight characters.
Such is exactly the case in Dragon Age: Inquisition, with four heterosexual characters, one gay, one lesbian, and two bisexual. Among these, only one apparently has a race preference, Cullen who will only be romanceable by human or elf (the other possible races being dwarf and qunari). The game apparently counts all humans the same, regardless of ethnicity. What a utopia! (Except the majority of the human NPC’s are white, and I would argue the elves, too.) Among the party members in this game, only one of them is identifiably not white, Vivienne. (A case could perhaps be made for Dorian, but my own research on him suggests that he comes off ambiguously. People see him as Middle Eastern, south Asian, Italian, or possibly Roman, and to be honest, unpacking that is probably an article unto itself).
Her race never comes up in how she understands her identity, and while on one level this might seem like a utopian representation it must be reiterated that she is the only prominent non-white character to speak of. The majority of other characters fall somewhere on the spectrum of white-european. Also of note, Vivenne is the only party member who may have drastically different goals than the player themselves.
There is a subplot most of the way through the game, in which the player has the ability to influence who the new “Divine” will be (The Divine being the primary religious leader in this universe). There are three candidates, each representing a different set of values. Vivienne is the most conservative of the three, and the most likely to win without player intervention. Even in the event that she loses the epilogue will note that she went on to oppose whoever the appointed Divine is.
To say nothing of the particular politics of the choice, it is odd that the only character with political motivations that may be averse to the players’ is also the one party member that isn’t white. Which is to say, I greatly enjoy that Vivienne has her own motivations in the story, her own reasons for being there that aren’t just that she believes in the player’s vision. I think Vivienne is “good” representation, but such as it is, she also clearly demarcates difference. Were she among a cast of variously motivated, similarly complex characters, her being a driven character would be entirely positive. But among the yes-men and hero (player) worshipers that mostly make up the cast she is intentionally positioned as a hostile character who may undermine the player’s goals.
I find that I have gone on a bit of a tirade, so to get back to where I started let me just reiterate, Vivienne is “good” representation. She is empowered and displays agency, but she is not equal. She’s treated nearly as an antagonist by the game, which casts aspersions on what the developers were really trying to do with this character. Dragon Age: Inquisition pretends to treat ethnicity as nonexistent while at the same time making the majority of the characters white, so despite having instances of “good representation” the world has not been made any more equal for it.
The problem with good or bad representation is that this evaluation works within our current social understandings. Truly good portrayals of characters of various identities would attempt to show a greater understanding of the complexity of identity, not simply try to satisfy our current one.
