I have difficulty answering this. On one hand, I find that video games, were they to have better dialogue and story (let's face it, those are often the afterthought of video gaming), could comment and portray genocide as accurately as film or television. On the other hand, I don't think it will be feasible for the very same reason I've mentioned earlier - lacking dialogue and story.

I disagree with the distinction made between Interahamwe soldiers and many German troops in World War II as outlined here:

"With Nazis, most people are somewhat aware that the leaders were horribly corrupt and demented individuals, and the young people on the ground were following orders like any other soldier -- for them, it wasn't personal."

The complicity of the German people in World War II and the Holocaust is something hotly debated in modern historiography. While I'm certainly not arguing that every German soldier was a Nazi, it's also incorrect to think of all of them as merely cogs in a machine, with moral agency completely located at the top with the Nazi regime. If you read the personal diaries of German soldiers, you see that many of them were fully engaged in what they were doing, and steadfastly espoused Nazi doctrine. Now, that is not to forget the crucial role of propaganda, but at the same time, the Interhamwe were subject to it as well.

@Andrew I actually appreciate Suriel's second sentiment about the ineffectual nature of Nazis as villains: Over the past 60 years, portrayals of Nazis have become more and more cartoonish -- to the point that they are basically the boogiemen of the 20th century. It's a tragedy that it turned out that way because we are talking about people who created (numerically speaking) 1100 to 1700 times the sorrow that the Interahamwe did. Sometimes I feel like stuffing them into Indiana Jones and Wolfenstein has trivialized what may be the single most important lesson in modern history.

That said, I also agree somewhat with the statement you are calling into question. The number of German soldiers was far more vast than the number of Interahamwe aggressors. Also, they were much more spread out geographically. The Rwandan massacre was a localized conflict that was centered around two factions in close proximity. I doubt that many historians would say that a German infantryman stationed in Africa was complicit in the creation of the death camps at Auschwitz and Dachau. That's like saying a soldier at Normandy was responsible for the Japanese internment camps on the west coast.

On the other hand, you are right. It seems ridiculous to compartmentalize the Nazi war effort and the Nazi's anti-Semitic policies...guess that's why people still debate it. In the end, we're comparing the "horribleness" of Interahamwe and Nazis -- why even bother? I say good riddance to all of them.

@James:

I really like your (and Suriel's) points about the place of Nazis as villians in video games. (And I think the point applies to much of film as well.)

However, just to clarify, I'm not talking just about culpability for the Holocaust. I'm also including complicity in the Nazi regime's aggressive wars. The social and cultural groups targeted in the Holocaust (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) weren't the only objects of scorn. Slavs, for example, were also seen as inferior, and hatred of this weaker race (in their eyes) was evident in the average soldier in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Basically, there are different levels of culpability in different elements of the horrors of National Socialism -- and the German soldiery, or citizenry for that matter, can't be seen as completely blameless.

"Fiction is certainly capable of conveying the emotional weight of genocide, but no matter how well it does that, it can't come close to actually being a part of the event."

Another problem specific to video games is the agency given to the player. No matter how carefully designers set up an emotionally powerful scene, once you give up control to the player, any reaction is possible. A player could spin his character around in circles, continuously run him into walls, or try to shoot all of the NPCs in the scene. In any case, the emotional weight is sucked right out of the scene.

@Brett: that's true, but there's agency in every interaction with a piece of art. I could choose to look at a painting cross-eyed, or fall asleep when I'm watching a movie, or skip over paragraphs in a book.

You raise some good points, but to me they sound more like challenges to developers than proof that games are incapable of portraying atrocities effectively. Sure, if we assume an FPS that wants to tackle this subject matter is going to stick to the Call of Duty formula, then you're right--it's ultimately going to undermine the emotional impact (especially if tis enemy behavior is scripted). But it's hasty to assume that no developer can ever find a solution.

To use your example of having to try a section multiple times--why assume you'd be given a chance to do that? If a game is trying to portray the horror of genocide, it's trying to give you an experience other than fun, so why not throw out those unrealistic design elements that developers use to make games more fun? I realize that doing so would lead to all sorts of new problems, but that just means making such a game would require more creative and sensitive developers.

I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong--we won't know until someone actually tries to make the kind of game you're talking about. But I hate seeing games declared "inherently" unable to do something before they've even attempted it.