After a day of hard graft in the Pixel Bandits office, we sat down and had a dinner that couldn't be beat. After putting baby bandit to bed we saw Gamechangers, the BBC Documentary about the creation of Grand Theft Auto and thought it would be worth a watch. Our night went downhill from there. Today's soundtrack on the left is from the Fifth installment of the super franchise.Now it wasn't a "bad program" from the outset. It has a decent cast, including screen bigwig Bill Paxton and Daniel Radcliffe who has certainly come a long way from the shoddy child acting when he starred as "The Little Wizard Who Could", but from the outset something was jarring at me... Following a portrayal of Rockstar after the release of Vice City and working through the construction of San Andreas the program starts heavy and hard with Rockstar celebrating a staggering amount of profit on Vice City and quickly into a depiction of Devin Moore and his brutal murder of three police officersWhich leads us to the first point, that this "Docu-Drama" is, from the outset, less genuine than a cardboard Buster sword. Fiction quickly overtook fact in a poor and unsuccessful scramble for entertainment value. Seemingly within a few weeks Vice City is released, Moore is arrested, killing three officers and former attorney Jack Thompson steps in as the gallant hero on a crusade to stop parents from buying 18 rated games for their underage children stop people making violent games.In reality, Moore was arrested June 7 2003, around 8 months after the release of Vice City, and it wouldn't actually be until 2005 that Jack "Righteous Thunder" Thompson came anywhere near this case. Again, in the BBC adaptation of the truth you're led to believe that Jack Thompson has never been on a computer in his life, and yet the reason that he didn't jump straight to Moore's defense may well have been because in 2003 he was trying the same kind of thing with GTA 3 and a lad of 16 called Dustin Lynch, who murdered his friend in Ohio.The big things in the program are right, Devin Moore did kill three people, Hot Coffee was a (really rather naff) sex scene left on the disc but unreachable by normal players, however it is interspersed with misinformation and falsehoods which really brought down what could otherwise have been a factual look at the link between gaming and violent behavior, but that still would have made me angry. why?Because the media keep asking that big question. Do Violent video games make you violent. The very fact that this argument is still raging after 23 years, since the release of the first Mortal Kombat, perpetuates the myth. If there is no link, why are we still asking the question, the fact that headlines and click-bait ask this question regularly will lead anybody who doesn't look behind them to the conclusion that they must do, otherwise, what's the big hooha?A psychological study recently revealed that playing violent video games can be a "risk-factor" to exhibiting increased aggression, however not only did they also point out that there was no evidence that this influence was enough to lead to criminal acts and, let's be honest here, the same desensitizing and copy cat behavior can be taken from anything from books, to film, to television, so why the focus on gaming?To quote the Independent online newsblog, "The findings have prompted a call for more parental control over violent scenes in video games from the American Psychological Association (APA)." which again is absolutely absurd. The thing about these violent games is that, make no mistake, there is a brutal amount of gore and bodily destruction. In GTA you can pay for intercourse with a prostitute and then beat her until she dies and you get your money back. Do I want my eleven year old to play that, of course not. Do I want stricter parental controls on the game, also a no... becauseVideo games, much like film, have something in the way of control already. It's taken out of the parents hands. The video gaming development community themselves work with various boards in order to ensure that children do not have the opportunity to perform any of these acts or even witness any of this violent content... and you've probably seen it a few times a day. Each and every one of the games listed in court cases and studies is an age 18 restricted game in the UK. This means that it is illegal for children to buy it, much like alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.So, who is to blame here. Who is the one to point the finger at when children are exposed to levels of violence that (most of us agree) they shouldn't be seeing. Do we curse out the developers, who spend time developing an adult content game? Do we take to court the classification board who rate the game for sale (by law) to only adults? Do we ransack the offices of the retail stores who 99 times out of a hundred refuse to sell these items to children due to the massive fines and jail time they could serve for doing so? Or should we blame the parents, who buy age restricted games for their children because they are not legally allowed to buy it for themselves?

Not being a gamer I'll be honest and say I'm not exactly fully aware of how huge some games are, but even I knew the stories of GTA and Sam Housers goings on. I had no idea he was a Brit. I'm sure lots of it was dramatised, it was a fairly interesting concept for a TV movie, but did it deliver?The story focuses on the moral story of GTA. Houser wants to push the boundaries of gaming, make them more graphic, bigger and more realistic. The moral argument is brought by Attorney Jack Thompson, a god fearing man that believes the game is responsible for the plight of America's youth, and the cause of a teenager's killing of two cops.I like Daniel Radcliffe, I feel he had a tough time of it, as he was the only real interest throughout, I found some of the other performances a little flat and unforgettable.Put it this way I won't be buying the DVD, it passed the time whilst I assembled a bench, not particularly engrossing or exciting, quite dull on the whole. 4/10

The debate about the effects of violent video-games on people had existed long before GTA (when Mortal Kombat was released it was the first time I personally heard about it) but, with GTA something changed that made the debate much more heated and aggressive. Conservatives all over the world were open arms about how these evil games were turning the children into potential killing machines. Jack Thompson although not the only one, was the more well known among these people.The movie starts one day after the release of Vice City and spans across all the creative process and release of San Andreas. Within set time frames two plot lines are follow, the legal battle between Thompson and Rockstar, and the development of San Andreas. These plot lines flow nicely and never feel too slow-paced.I was surprised at how balanced the film was, it does not takes any sides and does not portray Thompson as just an asshole, it shows a man who believes he is doing the right thing (whether or not is truly the right thing is for us to decide) And although this story does have objectively a winner at the end, the effort of presenting the event fairly and not in a one sided manner is something to applaud for.Daniel Radcliffe is good as Houser. I cannot say it is a remarkable performance. The same goes for Paxton's character although he projects a lot more energy into the role but, that has to do more with the way the character is written than anything else the supporting cast does the job but, there is no one particularly memorable.The influence of The Social Network in this movie cannot be denied and its one of the reason some people have criticized this film strongly, stating that is just a carbon copy of it is not. The influences are present in the tone of the movie but, saying it is a carbon copy of David Fincher's film is more than a stretch.All things considered, The Gamechangers is an entertaining TV movie about a controversial subject which remains still. I doubt it will be a classic by any means but, it does the job of telling the story in a fun an effective manner.

I'm usually a big fan of most of the BBC's output but I find it impossible to understand why when one side in the drama wanted nothing to do with it that they decided to proceed anyway and they did so with none of the explanation or background that would've humanised the staff of Rockstar Games.To deem the drama factual is laughable, almost every person depicted was a characterisation in one way or another (sharp-suited, curt lawyers / scruffy game developer / insomniac gamer)… In fact so little character development occurs I don't even think it's correct to classify it as a drama.I think the biggest failure was the disconnect between the over- clarifying language used throughout and the areas where the message was lost because of a lack of consistency with that format… Namely that at no point was it spelled out that the game was not being sold to children but being purchased by adults. They were happy to allow the opposition to repeatedly (to the point of nausea) claim that the game was corrupting their children but never in their otherwise blanket exposition state that the game wasn't aimed at or allowed to be legally sold to children.There were things it did well such as stating that no firm links exist between violence in media and reality and depicting the difficulties faced by the opposition lawyer who brought the case and his family however these failed to make up for what was otherwise a rushed overview that failed to provide sufficient justification about Rockstar Games' motives or goals. How did they expect they could create a meaningful drama by trying to glean information from court documents and articles rather than speaking to actual people? I suspect the irony of the BBC failing to understand how a "factual" drama about a video game world without the input of any "real" individuals is lost on them.