Game Changers

As I learned in the news this show directly stole an artist's work online (from Kate Williaert) and used it without giving them credit... it is how I heard of this series to begin with. And so it turns out that was indicative of the overall laziness. That alone gets a low score from me. Not much insider content. A lot left out and some silly comments from the staff (rarely by anyone who was actually involved). Then what's the point?

It is obvious they picked the most popular topics for namesake and ran with it but the result feels pandering. You wanted to call the show Game Changers... and yet ignore the Playstation? Doom and Halo is MIA and arguably the reason Call of Duty could even crawl up the charts but go ahead and ignore proginators I guess and make a Call of Duty episode... like what?

What a shame. You get much more detail and proper storytelling from Gaming Historian or Gaming Years or any number of other history features and alot of them you can watch online. And they didn't steal smaller artist's work without giving credit to make it either.

This series has a fun concept but somewhat lacks on execution. Fans of games (or more specifically, video games) might enjoy if you don't mind hearing some information you already knew. The spectrum of topics this series is pretty broad so viewers are bound to learn something new, however it regurgitates a lot of well-known information, like yes we all know that Pac Man was originally conceived as Puck Man.

The best thing about this series is that they managed to get interviews with a good amount of the original designers from each game showcased, something I haven't seen in documentaries that cover the same topic.

Worst thing about the series is the editing and presentation. It's obvious that the episode order was switched up at some point because the teaser at the end of each episode doesn't always match up with the episode that actually aired next (for example, the end of episode 7 teases that the next episode will be about the Madden series, when episode 2 already covered that topic). Not a huge deal, but it sucks to see multimillion-dollar mainstream television lack the attention to detail that let these sort of errors make it to air. The series description and opening title sequence also gives the impression that the series will cover games in general and not just video games, and while there is one episode dedicated to different board games, the rest of the series is strictly about video games. The series has a lot of great potential but it just seems like what we got was not what was originally conceived/pitched. I'd like to see a little more variation in future episodes (if there will be any) that covers more outside the video game industry, and if they're going to keep the focus on video games then at least cover something that isn't surface-level knowledge about massively popular companies like Nintendo, people already know that story. I'm surprised they didn't cover Doom since they didn't mind retreading the same topics that previous docs already have.

Ultimately it's still entertaining but nothing groundbreaking.

Not only does this series feel like a half-hearted effort to regurgitate widely known basic, it commits the added sin of arriving in 2024 after countless other docs already exist, resulting in little more than copy-paste from those who did it better.

Despite decent film quality and editing, there's enough evidence in episode Nintendo's Wild Ride to show this series largely exists to milk a well-known topic of interest and air it for the average person, without the attention to detail or narrative clarity to do the topic justice.

For example, the Power Glove is an '80s peripheral that is really a footnote in Nintendo's history (and the episode eventually calls it such) yet there's a bizarre amount of build-up and focus to its reveal as if it had a much larger place. Why emphasize it so much? And while neglecting any mention whatsoever about R. O. B., the far more relevant peripheral that helped get the NES initial sales. That's just bad narrative, and bad documentation.

Ashley Parrish is a journalist I never heard of before this, yet offers no useful insight, to the point where I can only assume she was included to diversify the interview subjects apart from aging males. From her erroneous quote that Donkey Kong kidnaps a "princess" in his debut (she is not one) to her pondering of how Nintendo "somehow" made the Wii a hit but not the Power Glove (um, seriously?), she evokes eyerolls with her shallow input.

Anything worth gleaning is such common trivia (retold in countless prior features like this) that you can only assume the intention is exploitation. Did you know Mario was called Jumpman? Yes, along with everyone else and their mother. Another "let's do something talking about videogames and throw it up for views" made by opportunists. And frankly, those who know better are sick of it.

If you had to pick, you're better off with Netflix's series "High Score", which beat this to the punch, at least tells a better story and provides access to interviewees with greater credentials.