TV Review: Game Changers (BBC)

Review of the BBC Two special "Game Changers" which charts the rise of Rockstar games, the release of GTA San Andreas and their conflict with Jack Thompson

TV header

On Tuesday September 15th 2015 the BBC broad­cast a dra­ma en­ti­tled “Game Changers” about the re­lease of GTA San Andreas and Rockstar Games fight with (spoil­er) now dis­graced and dis­barred lawyer and in­fa­mous moral/religious cru­sad­er Jack Thompson.

The first many of heard of the dra­ma was the fact that Rockstar Games was tak­ing le­gal ac­tion via par­ent com­pa­ny Take Two in­ter­ac­tive, claim­ing it had no in­volve­ment with the project, did not en­dorse it and that the BBC didn’t have the right to use their brand­ing and trade­marked prop­er­ties. This was back in May and, de­spite the case nev­er be­ing re­solved, the BBC an­nounced at the be­gin­ning of this month it would press ahead with the re­lease of the dra­ma.

But let’s put the off‐screen dra­ma and le­gal ac­tion aside, the on‐screen dra­ma is what we’re here to talk about. The show opens with the rise of the plucky British stu­dio to a ma­jor play­er in the in­ter­na­tion­al games mar­ket and the rise of the GTA se­ries, set­tling on the de­vel­op­ment cy­cle of GTA San Andreas. It stars Daniel Radcliffe’s un­con­vinc­ing beard as Rockstar co‐founder Sam Houser de­liv­er­ing lots of very earnest and de­lib­er­ate­ly slow di­a­logue and ex­po­si­tion. I know it’s not Radcliffe’s fault but he still looks to me like an 18‐year‐old in a com­e­dy beard. I know he’s 26 now but he just doesn’t work as some­one who runs a com­pa­ny, even one as un­con­ven­tion­al as Rockstar Games, kind of like cast­ing. The sup­port­ing cast feels a lot more con­vinc­ing as British game de­vel­op­ers.

Jack Thompson, por­trayed by Bill Paxton, is by con­trast far less in­ter­est­ing, less un­hinged but all to­geth­er more charis­mat­ic than his real coun­ter­part, even if his ap­peals to God make you snick­er with the slight ham­mi­ness. He doesn’t cap­ture Thompson’s air of the snake‐oil sales­man that made him so in­stant­ly un­lik­able. They cap­tured some of his de­ranged out­bursts and grand‐standing but there was more of a mis­sion to hu­man­ize but that nev­er went as far as mak­ing him three di­men­sion­al.

The episode makes im­por­tant points about how videogames are still un­der greater at­tack than books or movies with­out lec­tur­ing one way or the oth­er but it gen­er­al­ly gets lost in the reg­u­lar trap­pings of TV dra­ma. That’s not to say it wasn’t en­joy­able -de­spite know­ing the flaws I still found my­self en­joy­ing watch­ing. It’s still kind of sur­re­al see­ing Game Developers be­ing even a lit­tle li­on­ized or por­trayed as pi­o­neers. All of the schlock trap­pings don’t damp­en the fun and some of the pre­dictable false jeop­ardy. There is some­thing slight­ly gid­dy about watch­ing the BBC at­tempt this and have it go slight­ly side­ways but still kind of hold to­geth­er, Harry Potter has stolen a home­less man’s beard and is pre­tend­ing to make a GTA game –you can’t com­plete­ly hate that.

The biggest prob­lem with the episode is that, with Rockstar push­ing against its cre­ation, it’s clear there was lit­tle to no ac­cess to ac­counts from Rockstar staff. Some claim­ing to be for­mer Rockstar em­ploy­ees have tak­en to so­cial me­dia to ex­press how un­re­al­is­tic the TV spe­cial was. I would have to agree, but quite frankly this is fic­tion based on fact; like most drama­ti­za­tions of this type. I nev­er ex­pect­ed it to be an as true to life as pos­si­ble ac­count of events and nei­ther should you go­ing into this.

The one‐off spe­cial was slick and vi­su­al­ly well‐constructed but its care­ful bal­ance and un­ease with talk­ing on the specifics of the videogame de­bate left it feel­ing some­what mud­dled and in­con­clu­sive. It also gave out some mis­lead­ing in­for­ma­tion: Hilary and Schwarzenegger lost their bat­tle to lim­it vi­o­lent games “like al­co­hol, to­bac­co and pornog­ra­phy.” What be­came Brown vs. EMA was a re­sound­ing vic­to­ry for videogames as an art­form and a form of pro­tect­ed speech in the USA. It was hu­mor­ous see­ing Hillary Clinton on‐screen as fic­tion­al Jack Thompson slimed at her words promis­ing to re­strict videogames. Unintentionally top­i­cal, I think.

Despite the clunky di­a­logue, forced ex­po­si­tion and painful­ly TV‐style act­ing, I think game chang­ers is a mark of the times: videogames are now bet­ter un­der­stood by those in the TV world even if we must some­times en­dure un­in­ten­tion­al­ly hi­lar­i­ous fare like Law and Order SVU’s Imitation Game. Games are no longer the bad guy and, as much as they want­ed to por­tray a ‘no sides win’ sit­u­a­tion, Jack re­al­ly was the an­tag­o­nist in the sit­u­a­tion. The fact we have an hour and a half on prime BBC Two real es­tate ded­i­cat­ed to this sub­ject at all is far more in­ter­est­ing than the episode it­self. I can’t help won­der­ing if, in ten years’ time, we might have a dra­ma where Anita Sarkeesian is the an­tag­o­nist against the games in­dus­try. Just a thought.

But does the dra­ma stand on its own? As a look in­side the games in­dus­try, nope, not even close. As a dis­tract­ing piece of melo­dra­ma? Absolutely, it’s a bit naff but ul­ti­mate­ly not un­watch­able. Approach it for what it is: a TV movie. Nothing more, noth­ing less. Radcliffe, fa­cial hair ex­clud­ed, does give the role an ad­mirable amount of ef­fort de­spite in my view be­ing slight­ly mis­cast. He de­liv­ers some of the di­a­logue about artis­tic ex­pres­sion pas­sion­ate­ly and those are his best mo­ments on‐screen.

As we march into an age where the games in­dus­try and es­pe­cial­ly the gam­ing press seems to have wel­comed the new Jack Thompsons’ into their midst, I think it is best to leave you with the fi­nal on‐screen words from the show:

There is still no con­clu­sive ev­i­dence games make peo­ple vi­o­lent. The de­bate con­tin­ues.”

At the time of writ­ing Game Changers is avail­able on de­mand to all UK licence‐fee pay­ers via the BBC iPlayer. It is un­clear if the pro­gram will be broad­cast in­ter­na­tion­al­ly on any of the BBC’s oth­er ser­vices.

The fol­low­ing two tabs change con­tent be­low.
John Sweeney
John Sweeney is a ter­ri­bly British man with a back­ground in en­gi­neer­ing. He writes long‐form ed­i­to­r­i­al con­tent with analy­sis of gam­ing, games me­dia and in­ter­net cul­ture. He also does the oc­ca­sion­al video game ret­ro­spec­tive with a week­ly col­umn about Magic the Gathering thrown in for good mea­sure. He also does most of our in­ter­views for some rea­son, we have no idea why. A staunch sup­port­er of free speech and con­sumer rights; skep­ti­cal of agen­da dri­ven me­dia and sus­pi­cious of un­ac­cou­table au­thor­i­ty but al­ways hope­ful for change.
Scroll to top