Time to opinion-gather. I've got an idea for a game that could, if done correctly, be a masterpiece. A game based on the Rwandan Genocide.

Now, don't freak out, this is NOT gonna be a game about mindlessly committing horrible, violent acts. I want it to be more of a realistic, historically accurate simulation of what a young Tutsi man might have gone through during the genocide. Now, this may include hiding from and evading Hutu forces, bargaining for your life and the lives of those that might be following you with valuables you've found (though there's a possibility you might be killed anyway) and, if the situation calls for it, violently defending yourself and others. As such, extensive research would have to be done, and I'd probably have to interview and consult with survivors of the event. Actually, it's incredibly possible I'm misinformed and this entire idea is very unrealistic.

I'm fully aware that in the wrong hands, done incorrectly, this could be a horrible, tasteless game. Even done perfectly, many would still probably brand it as such. My aim would be to make this game as inoffensive as possible, while still maintaing the realism and emotional power of the event.

As for the gameplay, I see minimal or no HUD (preferably none), as well as a means of fluidly switching between third and first person views for alternating between stealth/evasion and offensive maneuvers. Obviously, the AI would have to be very good, and the animations very realistic to maintain immersion.

There's a lot more to it than this, but it would be difficult to explain it all here. I'll try to elaborate more as people ask questions/offer criticism.

So, you want a game where you hide the whole time? That honestly doesn't sound like much fun.

I think the game has potential, but it would most likely not be fulfilled in a promising, enjoyable manner.

Besides, Ubisoft might sue you (Far Cry 2).

;)

Uh-huh, I know where you got inspiration!

Edit: Grammer mistake

Being locked up in a church by my neighbours and being burned to death once it's full, or being hacked up with machetes if I leave doesn't really appeal.

I guess it depends on how you choose to play. Some might attempt to hide the entire game and wait out the genocide which would be boring, and I think, very difficult. Others, might actively attempt to flee the country. Others might attempt to find other victims and rise against the Hutu. I want you to be dropped in this game and told to simply "Survive." How you do that is up to you.

I'm actually doing a project on the Genocide for my english class. I've never played Far Cry. Is it like this?

Imagine the amount of the NPCs you would have to put in, that'll be a major strain on my poor little laptop, plus they all need to be scripted. UNLESSS you're a guy/girl who didn't quite catch on and you got left behind with a couple of others.

He probably got a bit of inspiration from that movie on the Rwandan Genocide starring Don Cheadle.

Hotel Rwanda. I'm actually renting that and watching it tomorrow as part of my project.

It's certainly an interesting idea. At it's core, it's just going to be another game with people trying to kill you, so you'll need a really good story to make it unique. I imagine it'd be part horror, part stealth and part survival. I don't think it would be too controversial as long as you didn't show the really terrible sides of the genocide, like women and children being violated before being killed.

:shrug:

Most games place you in situations that, given the choice, I'd avoid in real life. Although obviously the situation you describe would make for pretty poor gameplay, I can imagine a certain amount of excitement could be derived from a game centering around your attempts to avoid such an outcome.

Still, I'm not sure I'd go with a genocide situation. You could achieve the same "everyone around you is trying to kill you in horrible ways and you need to hide/run/fight/manipulate your way through to the slim chance of survival" gameplay (and therefore thrill) with a situation less likely to leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

That's not to say it would be impossible to do a good job of the game the OP describes...but I've yet to see a game handle a historical situation with sufficient taste and nuance that it convinces me the videogame industry is ready to maturely tackle a subject like genocide.

Sounds like too gruesome of a historical event to be made into a "game". There are plenty of WWII games, but they don't deal specifically with the Holocaust.

I don't think it's right to make a game out of it, to be honest. It could be a fun game, sure, but...I think there's somewhere you have to draw a line. There's a difference between making a game out of World War II, (not involved with the Holocaust) and a genocide.

Meh. :shrug:
Seems a bit odd to me. Slightly disrespectful to the parties involved in the actual genocide?

Watch Hotel Rwanda is the closest I've ever come to crying in a movie. When I played FC2 it actually kinda reminded me of the film, except terrible.

I think this game could work if it was handled sensetively, but you'd still have the mass media hunting it down.

++

There are far more amusing themes to use for games imo.

Sounds like a pretty terrible idea for a game to me. Firstly, being based on the Rwandan Genocide is a bit distasteful, and secondly, it sounds like the gameplay would be dull. I can't see it being anything more than an aimless snoozefest if you just drop the player into the world and tell them to survive.

I find the whole idea to be completely distasteful. Genocides should never be made into a game.

They said that bout Metal Gear to.

Video games are more and more becoming a form of entertainment that can tell amazing heartfelt stories, with developed characters etc..They are the movies of the future IMO. The Rwandan genocide is a story that should be told, but I don't think the general publics idea of a 'video game' has developed enough to accept a game about the genocide, or any other such horrific powerful stories. I don't the the industry it self is ready for it either.

But then that brings up the point of games about WWII, it was a horrible war. But I think we are more comfortable with it because they all focus on the war, and people think war is 'ok'. If a WWII game focused more on the holocaust than that would be different. Anyways, thats my two cents.

http://www.amazon.com/Left-Tell-Discovering-Rwandan-Holocaust/dp/1401908969 Religious in nature but it actually tells the story of a survivor of the genocide. Some places video games just should never go.

I say no. Most war games work because, in theory, both sides in the original conflict had a fighting chance. The "genocide" part pretty much mean, in the end, one side just kills the other.

Far Cry 2 is set in africa and is about the war between different factions that goes on their. Don't know if the factions are the actual ones or anything like that.

Far Cry 1 is completely unrelated in everything but name to Far Cry 2. Different characters, no sandbox, different setting etc

As games they both have massive flaws and I would go so far as to say Far Cry 2 was complete crap. Far Cry 1 is good if you can get it cheap (Which will be easy) The final act of the game is awful and where it falls apart, the stealth is broken with enemies spotting over 5000 yards away at the top of a mountain behind a bush. Probably because the protaganist is wearing a very bright hawaiin shirt. Also, like ALL games that use the cryengine, it has awful vehicle sections which you must complete.

Worked for Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid.

Personally, that sounds like an interesting game. I'd probably buy it.

FarCry 2 is a game about running over Zebras. It teaches the impotant lessos that all African people are made of kevlar.

No, no, no. See, MG was not a game where your female companions were violated if you were spotted. MG was not a game where you got shot in the leg, doused in gasoline, and burned to death.

Don't even make a comparison.

I feel like if this game were ever made, Jack Thompson and Co. might actually regain some semblance of respect. No, it's far too soon.