Chinese Gaming Expo Bans Booth Babes

[theblindedhunter]

Horrible isn't it? If you don't like things being banned you should probably stay far, far away.

The reason to dislike this isn't just if you don't like banning things in general. A lot of those bans make sense: a video game expo is going to want only things that relate to video games, and there are certain levels of safety that need to be observed, for example.
But banning this is saying that showy dress does not and should not relate to video games, that video games can have nothing to do with revealing clothing - at least openly. It's limiting something that maybe shouldn't be limited.

And no, it isn't the government doing it, but something doesn't have to be an end of the world scenario just to be concerned by it. It sets a precedent, and will effect the choices of developers and players and other expo holders. In time, if spread, this could limit the freedom with which game companies could comfortably express themselves.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I find the Lollypop Chainsaw one more amusing.

The first picture on the left is the actual outfit worn by the main character, so saying that's too revealing is saying a lot really.

Me too. I'm not sure if they're in the order that the girl tried them on before being accepted, but how the middle outfit was ever going to be better than the official left-most one is beyond me!

That said, her resemblance to the protagonist is quite striking.

 

[Hagi]

Horrible isn't it? If you don't like things being banned you should probably stay far, far away.

The reason to dislike this isn't just if you don't like banning things in general. A lot of those bans make sense: a video game expo is going to want only things that relate to video games, and there are certain levels of safety that need to be observed, for example.
But banning this is saying that showy dress does not and should not relate to video games, that video games can have nothing to do with revealing clothing - at least openly. It's limiting something that maybe shouldn't be limited.

And no, it isn't the government doing it, but something doesn't have to be an end of the world scenario just to be concerned by it. It sets a precedent, and will effect the choices of developers and players and other expo holders. In time, if spread, this could limit the freedom with which game companies could comfortably express themselves.

Nobody is banning in-game outfits.

The whole fact that Lollipop chainsaw was allowed to show yet a booth babe dressed likewise was not shows this. The freedom of the game was in no way or form restricted. The expo they showed at already had this very rule.

The freedom of booth babes, who do indeed have absolutely nothing to do with video games, was restricted.

Again, I don't see the problem.

EDIT: And by your logic banning pets from conventions also sets a precedent of not having in-game pets? In-game and the real world are different things. Pets in games at the expo are cool, pets there in reality are not. Revealing clothing in games at the expo are cool, revealing clothing there in reality is not. Murdering people in games at the expo is cool, murdering them there in reality is not. Etc.

 

[kitsuta]

"Today, after my first performance finished, I was told by the organizers to leave immediately and that I am forbidden from coming back tomorrow and the day after," she wrote.

Makes sense, I mean, it's not like they could have just asked her to wear a different costume or told the company that hired her to give her some more clothes.

Oh, wait.

Seriously, punishing the model just for doing her job? It's not her responsibility to keep track of the con rules and try to go against her bosses' orders. It's her responsibility to wear the costume that's made for her and act nice to people. Which might sound easy... if you've never had to act nice to every single person you meet over a three-day convention. Yeesh.

The convention can have as strict of a dress code as they please - particularly if their attendees are predominantly under 18, as they claim. But it's kind of creepy to punish the model the harshest when it's entirely her employer's fault. If they wanted to be that harsh, they should have kicked out ZQGame as a whole.

 

[Charli]

Ah booth babes...your controversy just won't end.

Y'know I enjoy skilled cosplayers. Male and Female. Hire them and dot them around the expo or let each company hire them to hang around their booths, I see this from a few of them and you know what? They're always the most popular at a games expo! Kids love seeing their favorite characters and a fair few goers bring kids. THAT'S something I can get behind. If the character they cosplay as is wearing a bit of risque clothing, that's up to the expo to go ahead with. I certainly don't mind if it's in keeping with the theme.

But yeah I really detest the 'booth babe who is only wearing a skimpy piece of cloth (I don't think she had any kind of theme, just the colours of the company using her) and rubbing her cleavage against a video screen most of the evening' Don't believe for one second that is what ALL of them do, but I have seen this extreme and it made me sad inside, this woman was clearly just there to be eye candy, and the strained smile she was putting on couldn't convince me she gave one schtick about what she was selling.

Calling them booth babes instantly makes my mind jump to that extreme. And I don't like the grimy feeling I take from that.

I feel sorry for this girl, but the company who hired her REALLY should have checked guidelines, if the guidelines were not provided then they should resolve it with the Expo and re tailor her outfit.

 

[Duckman]

This bothers me for the same, but also different reasons from previous posters. Sure, this could be seen as a step toward getting rid of booth babes (a practice I myself have no real issue with, but I'll get to that.) Or it could be seen as a step toward punishing the wrong people for something that may not be essentially wrong.

Reading it back, that makes little sense, so let me elaborate...
I don't find the practice of using booth babes to be inherently bad. It can certainly get out of hand, which there are certainly no shortage of examples for. But it can also be done right. A previous poster mentioned a way that a company was able to get girls trained to the character that she is hired to cosplay. There isn't anything wrong with using female cosplayers to help sell a product. Gender shouldn't matter (though I am well aware that id does.)

Besides, the effectiveness of booth babes as they're often used now will likely diminish as our culture begins to mature a bit more.

Now, is this ban wrong? Don't know, I don't live in China, and I won't presume I know their cultural standards better than they do. My personal opinion is that the cosplayer in question should get a warning before banning, but the con has every right to ban whomever they choose.

But what do I know?

 

[theblindedhunter]

Nobody is banning in-game outfits.

The whole fact that Lollipop chainsaw was allowed to show yet a booth babe dressed likewise was not. The freedom of the game was in no way or form restricted. The expo they showed at already had this very rule.

The freedom of booth babes, who do indeed have absolutely nothing to do with video games, was restricted.

Again, I don't see the problem.

You don't have to ban something for it to not happen.

I think it is clear that bans like this can contribute to a climate in the industry that is restrictive to what amount of sexuality games can use and explore.
Yes, the game may still experiment with those themes, but there is going to be an automatic disconnect with how they are presenting themselves and what is in the game they want to present, and I think it is no great leap to suppose that may effect what people start to feel comfortable creating.

And even if that doesn't change, it still shows a community that isn't comfortable with sexuality.

Still don't like it.

 

[Hagi]

Nobody is banning in-game outfits.

The whole fact that Lollipop chainsaw was allowed to show yet a booth babe dressed likewise was not. The freedom of the game was in no way or form restricted. The expo they showed at already had this very rule.

The freedom of booth babes, who do indeed have absolutely nothing to do with video games, was restricted.

Again, I don't see the problem.

You don't have to ban something for it to not happen.

I think it is clear that bans like this can contribute to a climate in the industry that is restrictive to what amount of sexuality games can use and explore.
Yes, the game may still experiment with those themes, but there is going to be an automatic disconnect with how they are presenting themselves and what is in the game they want to present, and I think it is no great leap to suppose that may effect what people start to feel comfortable creating.

And even if that doesn't change, it still shows a community that isn't comfortable with sexuality.

Still don't like it.

Right...

Because we don't want tits absolutely everywhere we're clearly not comfortable with our sexuality.

And really? Booth babes are absolutely required to present games that explore sexuality?

I'm sorry, but if the best such a game can come up with in advertising itself is booth babes then I'm afraid it's not going to be a very deep exploration of sexuality in any way or form.

Booth babes aren't some sort of deep exploration of games and sexuality. They're exploitive advertising. Nothing more, nothing less. And that just doesn't belong in some places.

 

[theblindedhunter]

Right...

Because we don't want tits absolutely everywhere we're clearly not comfortable with our sexuality.

And really? Booth babes are absolutely required to present games that explore sexuality?

I'm sorry, but if the best such a game can come up with in advertising itself is booth babes then I'm afraid it's not going to be a very deep exploration of sexuality in any way or form.

Booth babes aren't some sort of deep exploration of games and sexuality. They're exploitive advertising. Nothing more, nothing less. And that just doesn't belong in some places.

There is a reason I'm not speaking in such powerful absolutes as "absolutely everywhere" and "absolutely required" - I don't mean that. I've also not said "booth babes" because personally I find the term fairly offensive - there are girls hired to help bring interest to a game by, summarily, looking good next to it; but to dismiss this practice in its entirety as abhorrent, and to reduce those involved in it to objects past what may have already happened, and to make it terribly easy to label any pretty girl as a "booth babe", these are all offensive.
I... said more than I meant to. Anyway, that cleared up, back to the topic.

Refusing to let someone show of their body in a fairly small degree (that's cleavage, not exposed breasts), speaks of a culture that is all too weary of sexuality. Being comfortable with something doesn't mean that you have to engage in it, or like it, but you ought to tolerate that this is the way some people like to dress, the way some people like to present their product, and what some people like to see.
A girl dressed revealingly is not required to present a game involved with sexuality, but it should be an option.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Could it have something to do with that cameltoe she's sporting in that pic?

...

I'm not the only one who noticed right?

 

[Hagi]

There is a reason I'm not speaking in such powerful absolutes as "absolutely everywhere" and "absolutely required" - I don't mean that. I've also not said "booth babes" because personally I find the term fairly offensive - there are girls hired to help bring interest to a game by, summarily, looking good next to it; but to dismiss this practice in its entirety as abhorrent, and to reduce those involved in it to objects past what may have already happened, and to make it terribly easy to label any pretty girl as a "booth babe", these are all offensive.
I... said more than I meant to. Anyway, that cleared up, back to the topic.

Refusing to let someone show of their body in a fairly small degree (that's cleavage, not exposed breasts), speaks of a culture that is all too weary of sexuality. Being comfortable with something doesn't mean that you have to engage in it, or like it, but you ought to tolerate that this is the way some people like to dress, the way some people like to present their product, and what some people like to see.
A girl dressed revealingly is not required to present a game involved with sexuality, but it should be an option.

Again, these aren't girls that are going out of their own initiative and dressing up for fun.

These are girls who're hired to put on revealing costumes to attract a kind of attention that has little if anything at all to do with the game they're supposed to represent.

There's absolutely nothing wrong about that but there's also absolutely nothing wrong with hosting a convention that does not feature this sort of advertising.

All that's happening is that this convention is limiting the type of product and the type of presentation that you can give.

You're not allowed to grab a megaphone and start advertising your product with that, even if that's how some people like to present their product. Because that's not the type of convention that's being held.
You're not allowed to repaint the entire convention building to resemble something in your game, even if that's what some people would like to see. Because that's not the type of convention that's being held.

If you really want booth babes then by all means, support an organisation that sets up conventions where these are allowed. But it's ridiculous that an organisation that doesn't want booth babes at their event is somehow 'wrong' for banning. It's their event.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Could it have something to do with that cameltoe she's sporting in that pic?

...

I'm not the only one who noticed right?

I think you may have been, but congratulations on getting me to scroll back up and go "Oh yeah, there it is"

You could use that as a metaphor for how these women are essentially living dolls used to advertise a game, and the fact that I merely glanced before moving on rather than taking her outfit in is showing a familiarity with such things (revealing clothes as a matter of daily course, for instance) that would be less likely to have existed before the advent of our modern and extremely sexualised culture.

Orrrr we could just conclude that you're a pervert who stares at ladies' crotches all day, because that version amuses me more :-D

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Forget what I originally said:

I never considered booth babes as an integral part to game conventions... but at the same time I don't care if they are there or not. So, I guess I'm indifferent about this... if there is some injustice to this, then I would say they should fight it.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it regardless.

Orrrr we could just conclude that you're a pervert who stares at ladies' crotches all day, because that version amuses me more :-D

Only on weekends. I only noticed it by chance, I wasn't actively gawking at her crotch as soon as the jpeg loaded.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

wait.... there whole gaming cafe industry is based on booth babes 0-o

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

China has shown us the way. End booth babes showing a whole lot of skin!

Ahhh, feminists can get behind this.

 

[tmande2nd]

OH NO SOMEONE IS TAKING AWAY A SOURCE OF TITS!

THE HORROR!
I WONT HAVE BOOBIES TO LOOK AT!

How many of you actually WATCH Gaming Expo's from China?

 

[theblindedhunter]

If you really want booth babes then by all means, support an organisation that sets up conventions where these are allowed. But it's ridiculous that an organisation that doesn't want booth babes at their event is somehow 'wrong' for banning. It's their event.

Well that was my main point, sort of.
They can do what they want, but I'm worried that this is a precedent that could spread without people considering the limiting factor it imposes. I think that we as a community need to recognize that, and not simply laud praise on the idea of removing an aspect of gaming conventions often seen as negative.

Also I still dislike the insistence that they are "booth babes", but that's alright.

 

[Hagi]

If you really want booth babes then by all means, support an organisation that sets up conventions where these are allowed. But it's ridiculous that an organisation that doesn't want booth babes at their event is somehow 'wrong' for banning. It's their event.

Well that was my main point, sort of.
They can do what they want, but I'm worried that this is a precedent that could spread without people considering the limiting factor it imposes. I think that we as a community need to recognize that, and not simply laud praise on the idea of removing an aspect of gaming conventions often seen as negative.

Also I still dislike the insistence that they are "booth babes", but that's alright.

The way I see it booth babes (what's so offensive about calling them booth babes anyway?) are currently used for absolutely no good reason. Rather just because.

By the example of the article. That girl was dressed up as a much skimpier version of a character in the game. Why not just dress up like a character in the game? Why does it have to be more skimpy? That's just pandering to a very select demographic and thereby excluding others.

I hope it does set a precedent, so that people will actually put some thought in how they present their game rather than just getting a chick in 'minimalistic' clothing that has a vague resemblance to something from their game. And so that, if that precedent is ever to be broken, it requires something where there's an actual reason beyond pandering to present the game in such a way.