Let's Stop Pretending E3 Is A Professional Event

[Mr.Pandah]

But there's a difference between wanting money and wanting to do the act. I can imagine people willing to do the job (After all, booth babes do exist) but I can hardly imagine many genuinely enjoying the job. I just don't think we'd be destroying any dream jobs by removing booth babes.

If it was purely for the money, there's most-likely tons of other jobs that require good looks and probably aren't quite as centre-of-attention as being a booth babe.
My point is that many of these women know that they're attractive and can make a nice couple of bucks flaunting what they have. They've made the concious decision to parade around as eyecandy. More power to them for being confident, to be honest. Lord knows I'd be too much of a pussy.

^^ Haha I agree with everything you've said so far.

I agree with your point, but did we have to make that guy a poster boy for this whole situation? I don't know anything about him, but I can guarantee that the small amount of confidence this guy had is now destroyed forever.
Good point, the culture definitely needs to change, but let's not use bullying to make it happen.

The man and woman kissing in the V-J Day picture probably didn't intend to be creating an iconic image that would ring throughout the remainder of American history, but some pictures speak a thousand words and that's why we look at them.

The picture of that kid brazenly snapping a shot of those booth babes so perfectly represents why it's silly to call E3 an "industry event." GDC is an industry event. The D.I.C.E. Summit is an industry event. Neither of those events are going to generate a picture of a kid brazenly snapping a photo of two booth babes because to the best of my knowledge and experience there ARE no booth babes. That's part of what makes it pretty clear that they are "industry events" attended by professionals.

Had I spent the entirety of the column berating the kid in that picture, I would have to cop to a charge of bullying. As it stands, I think you've used the word inappropriately at best, and at worst the charge can be seen as trying to create sympathy for someone engaged in blatantly sexist activity which I have no issue pointing out.

Pro tip: if someone calls you out for doing something and you don't think you did anything wrong, you don't feel bad when someone calls you out for it. Should that kid become aware of this conversation and feel ashamed for being caught in that picture, and never ogles a woman like that so obviously again, I can't say I'm going to feel badly about it. There's a place for that sort of thing, and it's called a strip club.

You honestly don't see anything wrong with spreading a picture of a kid who's obviously a little awkward as it is around? Now we can see from the picture that he most likely doesn't have a way with women. I will guess he's shy and maybe introverted. He enjoys the booth babes and is there any reason he shouldn't?

Now this entire article is about how terrible it is that the gaming industry uses booth babes and how stupid it is to believe that we are interested it. Posting this picture wont make him become a better person. If he finds out or anyone he knows finds out it will probably make him more introverted.

Now what is the problem with people like this guy. It gives gamers a bad name... Really, if anyone is so insecure about their gaming hobby that they feel they need to humiliate any gamer who "gives gamers a bad reputation" then I don't know what to say. I like games and I know there are people out there who aren't like me at all. There are Atheists out there with different opinions than me and that are so intolerant that I want to punch them. I am still an Atheist and I have no need to humiliate anyone who "gives Atheists a bad name". I am secure and confident in my opinions, thus I can live with people sharing them and at the same time being awkward about it. I am also fairly certain that the picture was shared without his consent.

Still think there's nothing wrong with sharing that picture?

And I also agree with yours. Poor guy, I'd be in the same spot given the chance. Whose taking pictures of other people taking pictures anyways? INCEPTION.

 

[Danzavare]

But there's a difference between wanting money and wanting to do the act. I can imagine people willing to do the job (After all, booth babes do exist) but I can hardly imagine many genuinely enjoying the job. I just don't think we'd be destroying any dream jobs by removing booth babes.

If it was purely for the money, there's most-likely tons of other jobs that require good looks and probably aren't quite as centre-of-attention as being a booth babe.
My point is that many of these women know that they're attractive and can make a nice couple of bucks flaunting what they have. They've made the concious decision to parade around as eyecandy. More power to them for being confident, to be honest. Lord knows I'd be too much of a pussy.

Eh, assuming it pays well enough most people would probably suffer for a few days to earn some good bucks. In any case, my point is that by removing these jobs I really don't think we're depriving anyone so your initial argument doesn't justify keeping booth babes. Having them there does more bad than good.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Wait what ... did you just say that an event that lets the public in is an industry event?

E3 isn't about either games OR booth babes. It's about ... wait for it ... waiting in line for hours for some half-baked speeches.

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

Still think there's nothing wrong with sharing that picture?

Yes.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis was a little insecure about gaming, I certainly am.

Not at all, nor should you be. I honestly believe we're approaching a point where it's more weird not to know about or play games than it is to play them.

Concern about the perception of gaming is about whether or not we have diverse representation among our developers. It's about whether or not we encourage creatives to join the industry and expand the boundaries of our art because they understand video games are a legitimate medium. It's about what people *who aren't gamers* think about games, because some of them are people we want on our side, and alienating them is stupid.

I was at a conference yesterday where I heard from someone in the White House who works on video game policy. That position exists *because* video games have been accepted as a legitimate medium by the administration. That's a good thing. Hence my concern about perpetuating incorrect assumptions about who we are. Those incorrect assumptions are what prevented people from getting interested in video games for decades.

Here's your poster!! Hope you like it, Dennis!

I'm not *entirely* sure I understand the joke, but I laughed out loud in the lounge at the conference I was attending yesterday when I saw that.

 

[Yopaz]

Still think there's nothing wrong with sharing that picture?

Yes.

So nothing wrong with bullying someone who hasn't done anything to you? Nothing wrong with violating a law (yes there are laws against this) about sharing this without his consent?

Thanks for the moral lesson. Now I know that bullying awkward people on the internet is cool and that laws aren't valid on the internet.

Although one last question. If you're not insecure about you4r hobby, why do you have the need to humiliate someone like this? You pretend to be better than him, but you're acting like a bully here. If that's your impression of being mature then I wish you luck with that stance.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Those stupid Spike TV video game awards shows are worst. I watched the last one (first and last time I'll ever do that).

I'm not sure what the point of those is. Seriously, who are they for?

They're for advertisers mostly. They mean less than nothing in the eyes of most gamers, and probably in the industry as a whole.

 

[chronobreak]

What part of the event do the FANS belong to? Really? They are the reason there even IS an E3. I'd suggest you check your privlege at the door, because this line of thinking is a little disturbing. Also, do you realize how many "jounalists" snapped up pictures of the girls, put them on their sites, and got a whole bunch of hits out of it? Hell, even on the other end of the spectrum, they certainly made it so you could write this article, and the same ones pop up every year.

And hey, maybe that guy in that terrible photo has a gamer blog or something, you don't know. I don't see why you have to be so judgemental.

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

What part of the event do the FANS belong to? Really? They are the reason there even IS an E3.

You're entirely wrong. A little history lesson.

I was exchanging E3 war stories with a developer on Wednesday. I'm relatively new to the Expo. He was one of the people who worked on Asheron's Call and had a history in the industry before that, so he'd been going to E3 since the beginning.

The E3 he remembers from back in the day existed for developers to bring games to and cut deals with publishers, and for publishers to bring games to the press.

It was not a fan event.

It was not a "gamer event."

Fast-forward to the not-so-distant past, when E3 was moved out of the convention center and held in hotel rooms with little fanfare. I'm not sure why those scaled-down, back-to-business E3s were considered a failure, but that was also an industry event. This perception you have that E3 has always been a circus populated by fans and tourists is absolutely false.

You're also conveniently ignoring last year's crackdown on E3 badges. From the ESA: "E3 Expo 2011 show management has placed 'caps' on this year's media badge assignments due to the tremendous number of requests for media badges. As part of the overall qualification process, the Media Team uses Compete.com, xinureturns.com, Quantcast.com and Alexa as the standard measurement/ranking tools in determining media badge approvals for online-based applicants."

Translation: "This isn't a place for fans to come in and horse around. You're here to generate press, because this is an industry event. If you have a media badge, you should be conducting the business of the media." It is not an event for just anyone with a blog with no readership.

This statement is, of course, a joke as tourists like the kid in the picture were everywhere, as they have been each of the three years I've been at the Expo. But don't get it twisted and think that E3 has always been, or was ever meant to be, a community event. You're confusing it with PAX.

 

[BBboy20]

I agree with your point, but did we have to make that guy a poster boy for this whole situation? I don't know anything about him, but I can guarantee that the small amount of confidence this guy had is now destroyed forever.
Good point, the culture definitely needs to change, but let's not use bullying to make it happen.

http://www.destructoid.com/e3-chest-bumps-with-booth-babes-229069.phtml Holmes is more of a man then most of us ever will be.

But yeah, can anybody confirm that all these shenanigans ever worked that didn't cater to people who give a damn about this hobby? Do the majority in LA who aren't into gaming even know E3 exists despite all the massive local advertising?

 

[chronobreak]

What part of the event do the FANS belong to? Really? They are the reason there even IS an E3.

You're entirely wrong. A little history lesson.

I was exchanging E3 war stories with a developer on Wednesday. I'm relatively new to the Expo. He was one of the people who worked on Asheron's Call and had a history in the industry before that, so he'd been going to E3 since the beginning.

The E3 he remembers from back in the day existed for developers to bring games to and cut deals with publishers, and for publishers to bring games to the press.

It was not a fan event.

It was not a "gamer event."

Fast-forward to the not-so-distant past, when E3 was moved out of the convention center and held in hotel rooms with little fanfare. I'm not sure why those scaled-down, back-to-business E3s were considered a failure, but that was also an industry event. This perception you have that E3 has always been a circus populated by fans and tourists is absolutely false.

You're also conveniently ignoring last year's crackdown on E3 badges. From the ESA: "E3 Expo 2011 show management has placed 'caps' on this year's media badge assignments due to the tremendous number of requests for media badges. As part of the overall qualification process, the Media Team uses Compete.com, xinureturns.com, Quantcast.com and Alexa as the standard measurement/ranking tools in determining media badge approvals for online-based applicants."

Translation: "This isn't a place for fans to come in and horse around. You're here to generate press, because this is an industry event. If you have a media badge, you should be conducting the business of the media." It is not an event for just anyone with a blog with no readership.

This statement is, of course, a joke as tourists like the kid in the picture were everywhere, as they have been each of the three years I've been at the Expo. But don't get it twisted and think that E3 has always been, or was ever meant to be, a community event. You're confusing it with PAX.

Blogs are not media? Bloggers can't be journalists? Or maybe you are saying not just ANYONE with ANY blog. Maybe the less popular ones get skirted aside then, the journalists trying to make a name for themselves? If they aren't established enough, they shouldn't be there?

Maybe E3 is changing, and you don't like the direction it is going in, which is fine. Especially for someone who has been going for years, I can see how you would feel that way. I also genuinely enjoy most of your work and don't want to make it out that I'm attacking you as a person, just the exclusive club shit rubs me the wrong way.

The whole event is set up as sort of a circus show of booths and theater events, costumes and decorations, that it's almost built for anyone to want to get in and share in the experience. Heck, the gaming media even hypes it up as basically a big fun circus, cutting stories on fun experiences and pictures/rating of the best booth babes.

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

Blogs are not media? Bloggers can't be journalists? Or maybe you are saying not just ANYONE with ANY blog. Maybe the less popular ones get skirted aside then, the journalists trying to make a name for themselves? If they aren't established enough, they shouldn't be there?

Maybe E3 is changing, and you don't like the direction it is going in, which is fine. Especially for someone who has been going for years, I can see how you would feel that way. I also genuinely enjoy most of your work and don't want to make it out that I'm attacking you as a person, just the exclusive club shit rubs me the wrong way.

The whole event is set up as sort of a circus show of booths and theater events, costumes and decorations, that it's almost built for anyone to want to get in and share in the experience. Heck, the gaming media even hypes it up as basically a big fun circus, cutting stories on fun experiences and pictures/rating of the best booth babes.

There is certainly a difference between someone who types their thoughts into Wordpress like a diary, and someone who uses a blog space to write well-researched essays, or a group of people who use a gaming blog to publish news and reviews. You can't just lump "blogs" into a single bucket and try to discuss them like that any more than you could make blanket statements about magazines other than "They have pages, usually have words and pictures, and are usually published at regular intervals."

Would you be upset if a fansite wasn't allowed access to a White House press conference? Why not? Because you understand that only professional journalists are allowed to cover those events, and someone has to pay their dues before they are allowed to cover something so important. Games journalism is no different. If you want to get the access, you have to pay your dues.

Again, that's what PAX is for. It's an event which is specifically meant to be open to just anyone, and the PAX show floor is an E3 that anyone can attend. The fact that entrance requirements to E3 are so lax is what tells you it is not an industry event any longer.

The gaming media is not some united entity that covers E3 in a single way, and this year's coverage is a great example of that. Many outlets were outright turned off to E3 and that's reflected in their coverage. You're better off identifying individual outlets and discussing how they covered an event rather than talking about "the gaming media" as a whole, because outlets can be *very* different from one another, especially when it comes to business-facing and consumer-facing outlets. I work in both parts of the games journalism industry, and the work is totally different.

 

[Alexnader]

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis was a little insecure about gaming, I certainly am.

Not at all, nor should you be. I honestly believe we're approaching a point where it's more weird not to know about or play games than it is to play them.

Concern about the perception of gaming is about whether or not we have diverse representation among our developers. It's about whether or not we encourage creatives to join the industry and expand the boundaries of our art because they understand video games are a legitimate medium. It's about what people *who aren't gamers* think about games, because some of them are people we want on our side, and alienating them is stupid.

I was at a conference yesterday where I heard from someone in the White House who works on video game policy. That position exists *because* video games have been accepted as a legitimate medium by the administration. That's a good thing. Hence my concern about perpetuating incorrect assumptions about who we are. Those incorrect assumptions are what prevented people from getting interested in video games for decades.

When I say insecurity, I don't mean the emotional baggage and large 4 wheel drives that come with personal insecurities and embarrassments like how well hung one is. I mean the worry that comes from loving a medium that is only just emerging from the social stigma of yesterday into the mainstream acceptance of tomorrow. That's the motivation which I feel was pretty explicit subtext in the article, not some need to make yourself feel good by denigrating others like the guy in the picture.

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well, he's insecure about his hobby because of the way some people think of him because of this. Is a bully who bullies smaller kids less of a bully just because he does it because he's insecure because his parents are getting a divorce? Is he any less a bully because he picks on a kid who already got problems of his own?

Now you think this article isn't about the the picture of the guy taking a picture. That makes me wonder if we read the same article or not. It pretty much says how terrible the booth babes make and that we're better than the guy in the picture. The article even encourages people to make a meme from it.

So he's embarrassed over his hobby because people make the connection from that awkward guy to people like him. Now that awkward guy is awkward and probably a little introverted. He seemingly got problems in social situations. Then this glorious writer makes an article where he ridicules him more than he's already been. This is a guy who pretends to be mature and shows us that gamers aren't interested in booth babes. We are more interested in bullying people who hurts our reputation. He even encourages us all to bully those who give us a bad reputation. While he may be taking a swing at the stereotype at gamers and interest in scantily clad women he increases the stereotype of gamers being bullies and this does our reputation no good. I would more willing to be grouped with the guy drooling over the hot chicks than the guy attacking the awkward kid.

Oh, but it's not so bad because it's already hit Twitter and Reddit! That clearly makes it OK to violate someone's rights. It is in fact illegal to use someone's picture without their consent and just because "everyone else did it" that stays the same. This also increases the number of people who sees it. I never ever go near Twitter and rarely Reddit.

So to sum up your views from what I can see from what you're posting:
It's more mature to bully someone than to gawk at women.
It's OK to bully someone if they make you feel insecure about yourself.
It's OK to bully someone because that's how the internet works.
It's OK to use someone's picture without their consent because that's how the internet works.

First off, I'm going to need a citation from you on the legality of how you can use someone's image. If posting it on twitter is illegal then so is a lot of what the mainstream media is doing. So is what my old highschool art class was doing. I'm almost completely certain that unless Mr Awkward could make a case for harassment, nothing illegal has been done. Let this be a lesson to us all, never do anything in public that you don't want the public to see. You have less control over your image than you'd like and that problem goes far beyond the grand evil maester Dennis.

Also read my clarification above on what I mean when I say insecurity.

Now on to Mr Awkard, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions about this guy being socially awkard. Why all the pity? He was taking a picture of some booth babes and had an unflattering photo taken of him. There's no context to the picture. This image, like the memes on reddit, is not about him. It's about the idea presented in that instant. One where gamers are a bunch of shutins who drool over booth babes. Nobody gives a crap about Mr Awkward, it may well be his image but don't for a second think this is about him.

This article seems to be about the way E3 perpetuates a negative stereotype about gamers, how it's not an industry event but instead acts like a circus. The key example here being booth babes.

 

[Yopaz]

First off, I'm going to need a citation from you on the legality of how you can use someone's image. If posting it on twitter is illegal then so is a lot of what the mainstream media is doing. So is what my old highschool art class was doing. I'm almost completely certain that unless Mr Awkward could make a case for harassment, nothing illegal has been done. Let this be a lesson to us all, never do anything in public that you don't want the public to see. You have less control over your image than you'd like and that problem goes far beyond the grand evil maester Dennis.

Also read my clarification above on what I mean when I say insecurity.

Now on to Mr Awkard, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions about this guy being socially awkard. Why all the pity? He was taking a picture of some booth babes and had an unflattering photo taken of him. There's no context to the picture. This image, like the memes on reddit, is not about him. It's about the idea presented in that instant. One where gamers are a bunch of shutins who drool over booth babes. Nobody gives a crap about Mr Awkward, it may well be his image but don't for a second think this is about him.

This article seems to be about the way E3 perpetuates a negative stereotype about gamers, how it's not an industry event but instead acts like a circus. The key example here being booth babes.

I think I might have remembered the law incorrectly so the part about getting consent isn't necessary if it's in a place where you would would be expected to be taken picture of. There's also no way of finding out who he is from the picture alone. I apologize for going down a dead alley with the legal problems of this article.

Now as for your next points. Yes, this article isn't about this awkward guy, you're perfectly correct about that. The article is about how the industry treats us like a stereotype and a rather bad one at that. Does that make this less of bullying issue? The article's point isn't about bullying that awkward guy, does that change the fact that it does?

This article puts a face on a negative stereotype and goes on to say that we aren't like that because we're better than the guy in the picture. You say there's no context between the picture and the article? Did we read the same article?

The most offensive thing I saw from E3 2012 was this tweet and the image it linked to. If you're a male gamer, that's how you are perceived as long as photographs like that can hold us all up for trial. Slovenly, mouth agape in mid-gawk as he lines up the photo, perpetuating the stereotype that male gamers are awkward, dare I say sexually-inadequate social recluses who get to look at the pretty girls but never touch them, and hence have to be satisfied with a photograph and a fantasy.

This is his interpretation of the picture. He calls this offensive and goes on to call the guy a social reclusive and sexually inadequate. Yes, this is him describing the stereotype, but he's also using the guy as the face of the stereotype that he finds offensive.

So by all means, fight your insecurity by being a bully and think of yourself as better than guys like this. Defend your actions with "He was acting weird in public" if you feel like it. It's still bullying, but if it makes you feel better about yourself I wish you luck with it.

 

[JuliusMagnus]

Huh, From what I heard, yes there were booth babes there but it was a lot more toned down and less exploitative than previous years and the girls were more modestly dressed. The worst of it was the darksiders 2 booth babes and the lolipop chainsaw girls but for the most part it was an improvement on previous years.

Some, like the Nintendo girls, were not only dressed demurely, but also knew a great deal about the games they were demonstrating. To me, they're the ideal booth babe - cute, but also helpful. Some of the girls at E3 were straight up dressed like hookers. (Expensive hookers, in fairness, but hookers.) If more of the ladies at E3 were like the former - actually knowing something about the games they're presenting, and fully dressed - perhaps fewer people would feel awkward.

On the other hand Nintendo does have a habit of sometimes tethering the 'booth babe' to the console, which is probably awkward.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/E3_2010_Nintendo_Media_Event_-_Nintendo_3DS_demo_girls.jpg

Oh, yeah, they do that every year. Keeps people from running away with the 3DS. Last year, there was a HUGE bodyguard blocking the exit to the 3DS play area. That dude was the size of a Buick, for reals. This year, the girls had Mario caps and were the only 3DS stuff Nintendo had on display.

Maybe next year they should tether them to the huge bodyguard instead!

 

[Alexnader]

First off, I'm going to need a citation from you on the legality of how you can use someone's image. If posting it on twitter is illegal then so is a lot of what the mainstream media is doing. So is what my old highschool art class was doing. I'm almost completely certain that unless Mr Awkward could make a case for harassment, nothing illegal has been done. Let this be a lesson to us all, never do anything in public that you don't want the public to see. You have less control over your image than you'd like and that problem goes far beyond the grand evil maester Dennis.

Also read my clarification above on what I mean when I say insecurity.

Now on to Mr Awkard, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions about this guy being socially awkard. Why all the pity? He was taking a picture of some booth babes and had an unflattering photo taken of him. There's no context to the picture. This image, like the memes on reddit, is not about him. It's about the idea presented in that instant. One where gamers are a bunch of shutins who drool over booth babes. Nobody gives a crap about Mr Awkward, it may well be his image but don't for a second think this is about him.

This article seems to be about the way E3 perpetuates a negative stereotype about gamers, how it's not an industry event but instead acts like a circus. The key example here being booth babes.

I think I might have remembered the law incorrectly so the part about getting consent isn't necessary if it's in a place where you would would be expected to be taken picture of. There's also no way of finding out who he is from the picture alone. I apologize for going down a dead alley with the legal problems of this article.

Now as for your next points. Yes, this article isn't about this awkward guy, you're perfectly correct about that. The article is about how the industry treats us like a stereotype and a rather bad one at that. Does that make this less of bullying issue? The article's point isn't about bullying that awkward guy, does that change the fact that it does?

This article puts a face on a negative stereotype and goes on to say that we aren't like that because we're better than the guy in the picture. You say there's no context between the picture and the article? Did we read the same article?

The most offensive thing I saw from E3 2012 was this tweet and the image it linked to. If you're a male gamer, that's how you are perceived as long as photographs like that can hold us all up for trial. Slovenly, mouth agape in mid-gawk as he lines up the photo, perpetuating the stereotype that male gamers are awkward, dare I say sexually-inadequate social recluses who get to look at the pretty girls but never touch them, and hence have to be satisfied with a photograph and a fantasy.

This is his interpretation of the picture. He calls this offensive and goes on to call the guy a social reclusive and sexually inadequate. Yes, this is him describing the stereotype, but he's also using the guy as the face of the stereotype that he finds offensive.

So by all means, fight your insecurity by being a bully and think of yourself as better than guys like this. Defend your actions with "He was acting weird in public" if you feel like it. It's still bullying, but if it makes you feel better about yourself I wish you luck with it.

Firstly, what the hell did I do? My actions have nothing to do with Mr Awkward, you pass out the bullying label so much it demeans the term. I'm insecure about my hobby because my country only just legally recognised that games are to be treated the same as other mediums. I'm insecure about it because it's still burdened with stereotypes the likes of which are rarely ever applied to any other form of popular culture. That insecurity is not going to be relieved by taking a photo of some poor sap on the internet as seriously as you are.

So even though Mr. Awkward is only mentioned in passing and is no more than a figurative bullet point in this article, it's still bullying him.

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability.[2][3] The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a "target". - Wikipedia

Evil Dennis and his puppy murdering article have the power (media clout and a broad platform), however I'd argue they lack the aggression. Yes, I doubt Mr Awkward would be very happy about another article posting his picture, however the thrust of the article is aimed at the industry which perpetuates the negative stereotype. Not at the person who happens to be a convenient embodiment of said stereotype.

As a part of its message the article basically says it's bad to act like this guy is in the picture. That's not bullying as much as it's an expression of fact.