Introduction

This paper approaches the video game Detroit: Become Human through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which is a method concerned with the ways that language and representation both reflect and shape power and ideology. CDA highlights that meaning is not inherent or neutral, but instead constructed through discourse, which plays a key role in how social issues such as identity, oppression, and agency are framed in media. Detroit: Become Human (DBH) is a Franco-American adventure game developed by Quantic Dream, a French game studio founded by David Cage, creator of several interactive narrative games. Initially released for the PlayStation 4 in May 2018 and later expanded to PC in 2019, Detroit: Become Human received widespread acclaim for its artistic and technical achievements, including the game’s visuals, choice-driven narrative structure, and innovative flowchart feature that tracks player choices. However, critics have highlighted the game’s weaknesses such as muddled symbolism and the use of cliché historical allegories. DBH offers a rich site for the analyzation of the ways that media texts construct meaning and engage with broader cultural discourse, through a narrative shaped by symbolic ideologies, cinematic techniques, and player interaction. At the same time, the game also taps into growing cultural concerns about AI with its portrayal of androids both as technological products and as sentient beings seeking agency, raising questions about autonomy, control, and what it means to be human.

The narrative follows three main characters: Connor, a police investigator tasked with the mission of hunting down androids that have deviated from their programming; Kara, a housekeeper android who develops artificial consciousness and seeks to protect a young girl from an abusive household; and Markus, a caretaker android who becomes deviant and works to free others like himself from captivity. Set in near-future Detroit, the game uses these overlapping narratives to explore questions of agency, freedom, and social inequality. Despite David Cage’s assertion that his story is only about androids discovering emotions and wanting to be free and that any parallels drawn with civil rights or real-world events are purely coincidental (Grayson, 2017), the game’s use of civil-rights era language, imagery, and symbolic parallels suggests otherwise. Regardless of the creator intending a political message, the text itself inevitably engages with broader cultural discussions about marginalization, systemic power, and the struggle for acknowledgement.

This paper employs discourse analysis to examine how Detroit: Become Human establishes androids as metaphorical minorities and embeds ideological messages about freedom and civil rights within its narrative and visual design. Through the analysis of key scenes and discourse strategies, this paper argues the cultural and political relevance of the game’s representation of oppression, revealing that popular media has the ability to participate in conversations about social justice — regardless of the creator’s intent.

Theoretical Framework

To properly critically analyze Detroit: Become Human, it is necessary to establish a theoretical foundation. This paper specifically draws on CDA, a method that examines how language and other semiotic practices are used to either reinforce or resist power structures or ideologies (Fairclough, 1995). Compared to the many other types of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis has a close association with the discipline of linguistics, however its most prominent obligation is to semiotics (symbolism) and structural analysis. The main idea of critical discourse analysis is that a word’s sense or meaning does not come from any inherent feature of the relationship between the signifier and the signified, but instead from the system of oppositions in which it is embedded (Kackman & Kearney, 2018). In other words, meaning is not neutral or inherent— but instead constructed through communicative actions that are often meant to serve particular interests.

Critical discourse analysis is a method suited to analyzing popular media texts as they are abundant sites for the negotiation of social values and hierarchies. Narratives in media don’t simply mirror the real word, but also actively participate in molding how audiences comprehend issues such as race, oppression, and freedom. In the context of DBH, critical discourse analysis allows for an investigation into how the game’s language, visual imagery, and interactive storytelling practices frame androids as metaphorical minorities engaged in the struggle for recognition and civil rights. With the employment of these discursive strategies, the game both draws from and contributes to broader cultural understandings of systemic inequality.

A concept key to this analysis is ideology, understood here as systems of normalized meaning that work to legitimize existing social relations and power structures. Ideologies operate by making conventions that exist as the outcome of power relations and power struggle appear as “common sense” assumptions, thereby impacting how social interactions are both experienced and perceived (Fairclough, 1989). In DBH, the ideological framing of androids as subservient and expendable (and later, as advocates for liberation) mirrors real-world historical displays of racial and class-based oppression. The game’s utilization of civil rights-era language and imagery reinforces this ideological engagement, whether or not the creator intended it.

Scene Analyses

Next, this paper analyzes DBH through the lens of representation. As Stuart Hall (1997) describes, representation is the production of meaning through language (p. 16). Instead of being a passive reflection of reality, representation is an active process of constructing meaning. In DBH, the representation of androids using symbols of labor, servitude, segregation, and rebellion influences audience perceptions of social inequality and injustice. The discursive activities that occur within the game (including dehumanizing language used by some characters, and the visual/physical separation of androids in public spaces) position androids as “others” in the fictional society, invoking familiar cultural narratives concerning marginalization. Hall’s perspective (1980) also highlights the power of ideologies in influencing the public’s perspective on android resistance. Specifically, “where already coded signs intersect with the deep semantic codes of a culture and take on additional, more active ideological dimensions.” In DBH, societal responses to android resistance are shaped by existing ideological codes that represent androids as subservient, soulless machines with the potential to turn volatile. Therefore, acts of resistance by the androids that are coded with defiance are more likely to be read by the general public through a lens of fear, disorder, or threat as opposed to a legitimate call for agency and freedom.

A final key concept for this analysis is the relationship between power and discourse. In contrast to traditional views that see power as purely repressive, Michael Foucault’s (1978) perspective of power reconceptualizes it as a productive force, “because it is produced from one moment to the next, at every point, or rather in every relation from one point to another. Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (p. 93). In the game, discourse is utilized as a tool of power in the way deviant androids are framed as dangerous and violent deviants, as objects of pity or sympathy, or as revolutionary activists. The game’s depiction of news broadcasts, police activity, and public responses exemplify discourse’s functionality as a mechanism of power, which reinforces or challenges societal norms about freedom, humanity, and justice. There are other ways in which tools/concepts of power can be portrayed, but this is just one example.

With the establishment of the theoretical foundations of ideology, representation, and power/discourse, these concepts can now be applied to specific scenes within Detroit: Become Human. By examining different key moments in the game, the ways that these theoretical frameworks manifest can be examined through narrative and visual elements that further reveal the complex interplay between societal structures and individual agency. The following scene analysis will demonstrate how the game’s storytelling combined with its visual/cinematic elements reflect and challenge the ideological constructs and power dynamics explained earlier.

The complexities of discourse, representation, and ideology first emerge in ‘The Hostage,’ where the game’s narrative challenges perceptions of android consciousness and agency. This chapter is from the perspective of the advanced android prototype Connor, who must resolve a hostage situation with a deviant android named Daniel who takes a girl hostage after murdering her father. In this scene, Connor is on the side of the police. Although he is an android like Daniel, he must gain his trust due to his affiliation with the government. This scene introduces the game’s exploration into societal ideologies concerning artificial intelligence and personhood, or “humanity.” The police’s initial approach to the situation treated Daniel as a malfunctioning machine instead of a sentient being undergoing a crisis. This reflects a dominant ideological construct within the game’s society that denies the autonomy and emotions of androids, which reinforces their status as property rather than individuals. This echoes the ideology of real-world slavery that has occurred within history, which paints the oppressed race as property in order dehumanize them and to make society comfortable with dehumanizing them through degrading acts.

When it comes to representing Daniel, the game’s portrayal of him switches between that of a sympathetic figure and a dangerous threat.  Over the course of Connor’s investigation, players have the opportunity to uncover Daniel’s close relationship with his family, and that his emotional turmoil causing him to spiral out of control stems from learning he was to be replaced by them. The duality in the game’s representation of Daniel challenges simplistic representations of characters and people and compels players to consider the complexities of android consciousness along with the consequences of their treatment by humans. Furthermore, the negotiation scene between Connor and Daniel exemplifies Foucault’s concept of power. The information that Connor gathers throughout his investigation along with the language he deploys as a result of this knowledge are the building blocks of Connor’s ability to influence the outcome of the situation. The scene highlights how knowledge and communication are tools of power that have influence in the field of discourse.

The game’s use of dynamic camera angles and tension-building music during the scene highlight the emotional stakes of the encounter. While close-up shots of Daniel’s expressions during the ordeal humanize him, panoramic views of the rooftop emphasize the overall precariousness of the situation. These cinematic techniques work in unity to immerse players in the narrative and accentuate the thematic concerns embedded in the situation. For example, the struggle for acknowledgement that is shown by Daniel. He wished to be seen as family and as a person to the people who owned him, but unfortunately, they were unable to see him as anything more than a machine. Overall, “The Hostage” is a smaller representation of the game’s broader themes that challenge players to consider the ethical implications of artificial consciousness and the societal structures that define humanity. By putting players in a position to empathize with both Connor and Daniel, it forces players to reevaluate preconceived notions about personhood, emotion, and the right to autonomy.

While ‘The Hostage’ highlights individual struggles for recognition, ‘Freedom March’ expands this discourse into a collective movement, emphasizing the power of peaceful resistance against systemic oppression. Markus leads what begins as a peaceful protest through the streets of Detroit to advocate for android rights. The march starts with only a small group of Markus’ followers but grows as Markus converts all nearby and available androids to their cause. This demonstration results in a tense standoff with riot police, where Markus is forced to decide to how respond to their demands to disperse, or to face fatal punishment. This scene challenges the prevailing ideologies that view androids as mere machines, devoid of consciousness and emotion. By organizing a protest, specifically a nonviolent one, Markus and his fellow androids attempt to assert their desire for recognition/acknowledgment and equality as well as confront the dominant societal narrative that denies them personhood and agency. The march overall serves as a powerful representation of marginalized groups seeking to find justice. The androids’ peaceful demeanor, combined with the unified chants that humanize and unite them, counter the dominant societal stereotypes that portray androids as emotionless machines. This portrayal invites the audience to empathize with the plight of the androids by drawing parallels to historical civil rights movements, as well as emphasizing the universal idea of the struggle for freedom and self-determination.

The confrontation between the androids and the riot police exemplifies Foucault’s concept of power, as the androids’ chants and slogans that can be chosen to challenge the game’s existing societal power structures by introducing new narratives into the public domain. The authorities’ response to the situation, whether through suppression or negotiation, demonstrates how discourse is affected by power dynamics, which influences societal perceptions and potential changes to government policies. The dynamic camera angles used during this scene that switch between the emotions of a torn Markus and his followers, and the stone-cold helmeted riot police, heighten the emotional impact of the march on players. This, combined with a stirring musical score, emphasizes the importance of the scene and its consequences. “Freedom March” encapsulates the core themes of DBH by illustrating the androids’ transition from submissiveness to self-advocacy. By forcing the player into a position where they have control over the outcome, the game stresses the idea of the power of individual and collection action in confronting and reshaping oppressive societal systems. This echoes the ideology of the historical civil rights movement, in which the power of individual and collective action was stressed to overcome the established system of oppression and inequality.

The tension between ideological change and institutional resistance intensifies in the “Battle for Detroit,” which serves as the climactic chapter of DBH in which the intertwining narratives of Connor, Markus, and Kara come to a pivotal point. The outcome hinges heavily upon the player’s choices, which lead to various endings that reflect the characters’ journeys throughout as well as the broader themes of the game. This final confrontation determines whether systemic transformation can be achieved by either discourse or violence. “Battle for Detroit” further challenges embedded societal ideologies that portray androids as subservient machines devoid of consciousness and emotion. This societal ideology is central to the humans’ control over the androids’ rights to autonomy. Markus’ leadership in either a peaceful protest or an armed revolution confronts these beliefs and asserts the androids’ desire for autonomy and acknowledgement as sentient beings. The public’s opinion, which visually fluctuates during this chapter depending on the player’s choices, emphasizes the struggle between established societal norms and emerging perspectives on personhood and equality. The diverse outcomes of this scene provide varied representations of androids as a possible consequence. In a peaceful resolution, androids are depicted as rational and empathetic beings that seek equality, which draws parallels to historical civil rights movements. On the other hand, more violent outcomes of this chapter have the potential to reinforce existing fears of android rebellion, which highlights the complexity of android portrayal.

The androids’ actions, whether through nonviolent protest or armed opposition, challenge the existing power dynamics that exist between humans and androids. Likewise, the authorities’ reactions to the androids’ protest depends upon both the nature of the protest and the public opinion of androids. The nature of the protest must be peaceful, and the public opinion of androids must be sufficient to assure a favorable outcome in this chapter. This accentuates how discourse is shaped by power dynamics, through the actions of the androids in pursuit of equality, and how the public perceives those actions. As for the game’s cinematic techniques, the shifting camera angles that again shift between the peaceful demonstration by the androids (in the game’s best ending) and the defending government opposition highlight the gravity of the situation. The visual contrast highlights the thematic tension behind the scenes, driven by the android’s desperation for freedom. Character-focused shots foster empathy within the audience towards their cause and highlight the individual agency within the collective struggle. This chapter overall encapsulates the game’s exploration of autonomy, marginalization, and systemic power. By putting players in the position to make pivotal decisions, the chapter invites reflection on moral responsibility and the consequences of action versus inaction. The opportunity for a multitude of endings reinforces the idea that societal change is contingent upon both individual and collective choices, alongside the willingness to challenge existing power structures and ideologies.

Conclusion

Detroit: Become Human acts as a compelling narrative that challenges players to reflect upon the constructs of ideology, representation, and power as theorized by scholars like Norman Fairclough, Stuart Hall, and Michel Foucault. Through its interactive storytelling, the game not only entertains but also invites critical examination of societal norms and the mechanisms that uphold them. By analyzing key chapters throughout the story, we’ve observed how the game portrays androids striving for autonomy and recognition through narratives that mirror real-world struggles against oppressive systems. This portrayal emphasizes the role of discourse in both maintaining and challenging existing power structures.

Beyond its fictional narrative, DBH engages with real-world anxieties and controversy surrounding the rise of artificial intelligence and its possible implications for society by forcing its audience to confront a reality in which AI has evolved beyond human control and understanding. The game’s dual portrayal of androids as both laborers and sentient beings reflects contemporary concerns about the possibility of AI challenging human-dominant social hierarchies. By embedding these issues within familiar ideological frameworks (such as fear of the “other” (Lavender, 2011), technological dependency, and resistance to systemic change) the game mirrors existing cultural discourses that are shaping public perceptions of AI. This reinforces Hall’s (1980) argument that media does not simply reflect reality but actively participates in constructing meaning through ideological codes. In this way, DBH becomes more than a speculative narrative—it acts as a cultural site where questions about the future of AI intersect with enduring concerns about identity, agency, and power.

Ultimately, the game invites its players to ponder upon the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and the ethical or societal frameworks that frame personhood and agency. It emphasizes the importance of empathy, autonomy, and the continuous challenging of dominant societal ideologies. As interactive media continues to evolve, DBH exemplifies how video games can serve as platforms for profound social commentary and critical engagement. It reminds players that popular media does not exist outside of ideology, but instead actively participates in shaping social consciousness.

Sources

Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Polity.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume 1, an introduction (R. J. Hurley, Trans.). Vintage Books.

Grayson, N. (2017). Despite political overtones, David Cage says Detroit is mostly about androids. Retrieved from https://kotaku.com/despite-political-overtones-david-cage-says-detroit-is-1795939952

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. The Open University ; Sage.

Hall, S. W. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies (pp. 63-87). London: Hutchinson.

Interactive Pasts. (2023). Detroit: Become human and its problematic relation to history. Retrieved from https://interactivepasts.com/detroit-become-human-and-its-problematic-relation-to-history/

Kackman, M., & Kearney, M. C. (Eds.). (2018). The Craft of Criticism: Critical Media Studies in Practice (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis.

Lavender, I. (2011). Race in American science fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Metacritic. (2018).  Detroit: Become human critic reviews. https://www.metacritic.com/game/detroit-become-human/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-4&filter=Mixed+Reviews

Schubert, S. (2021). “Liberty for androids!”: Player choice, politics, and populism in Detroit: Become Human. European Journal of American Studies, 16(3). doi:10.4000/ejas.17360

Tompkins, A. (2022). Acts of becoming : An examination of the historical symbolism and embodied empathy in Detroit: Become Human. Loading… The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 14(24), 1–25. doi:10.7202/1084836ar

*This paper was written with the assistance of generative AI for organizational purposes only.*