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.
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.