Let's Stop Pretending E3 Is A Professional Event

[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.

 

[Blackbird71]

I find it absolutely mindboggling to see all the recent hate for booth babes. They're just doing their job, goddamn. :/

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy ogling a nice set of boobies whilst checking out the latest games.

As for "a place and time for such things", do you also think it should be forbidden for women to dress skimpily just because they WANT to? 'Cause lord forbid if the little kids see them~!

Are you being sarcastic or do you honestly mean to imply that women desire to put on skimpy outfits, stand all day in a hot crowded room and be ogled by less than desirable men? (To put it politely) Dammit man, most mobile phones have internet connectivity, if you're that desperate for breasts google search them. If that's not good enough, commit and go to a strip club.

(boldface added for emphasis)

I'm sorry but the hypocrisy/self contradiction here was just too blatant to allow to pass unnoticed. You're essentially saying "women don't want to have to wear skimpy outfits and be stared at by unnatractive men, so you should go to a place where the women wear skimpy outfits and get stared at by unattractive men." How does that kind of logic make any kind of sense?!?

The fact is that men are visual creatures, sights can excite us and draw our attention; it's how we're wired. I find things like booth babes (whether at gaming conventions, auto shows, or wherever) are a demeaning exploitation of that fact. I personally do not care for it as a marketing tactic, as I find it insulting (or an indication that the product can't stand on it's own). I'm not about to get upset at the women themselves; I'm sure that for the most part, they're just doing the best they can to make a living and it's the companies that hire them that deserve my ire. However I also will not pity the girls' "plight." No one forced them to take the job, and I'm sure they knew what it involved, so they had to be at least somewhat comfortable with the idea of being looked at and objectified by others. Basically, they chose their situation, so they can deal with it. If not, then I'm sure they'll avoid such jobs in the future. The bottom line is, they exercise their free will in taking these jobs, and they don't need any "internet champions" either attacking or defending their choice.

 

[Danzavare]

I find it absolutely mindboggling to see all the recent hate for booth babes. They're just doing their job, goddamn. :/

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy ogling a nice set of boobies whilst checking out the latest games.

As for "a place and time for such things", do you also think it should be forbidden for women to dress skimpily just because they WANT to? 'Cause lord forbid if the little kids see them~!

Are you being sarcastic or do you honestly mean to imply that women desire to put on skimpy outfits, stand all day in a hot crowded room and be ogled by less than desirable men? (To put it politely) Dammit man, most mobile phones have internet connectivity, if you're that desperate for breasts google search them. If that's not good enough, commit and go to a strip club.

(boldface added for emphasis)

I'm sorry but the hypocrisy/self contradiction here was just too blatant to allow to pass unnoticed. You're essentially saying "women don't want to have to wear skimpy outfits and be stared at by unnatractive men, so you should go to a place where the women wear skimpy outfits and get stared at by unattractive men." How does that kind of logic make any kind of sense?!?

The fact is that men are visual creatures, sights can excite us and draw our attention; it's how we're wired. I find things like booth babes (whether at gaming conventions, auto shows, or wherever) are a demeaning exploitation of that fact. I personally do not care for it as a marketing tactic, as I find it insulting (or an indication that the product can't stand on it's own). I'm not about to get upset at the women themselves; I'm sure that for the most part, they're just doing the best they can to make a living and it's the companies that hire them that deserve my ire. However I also will not pity the girls' "plight." No one forced them to take the job, and I'm sure they knew what it involved, so they had to be at least somewhat comfortable with the idea of being looked at and objectified by others. Basically, they chose their situation, so they can deal with it. If not, then I'm sure they'll avoid such jobs in the future. The bottom line is, they exercise their free will in taking these jobs, and they don't need any "internet champions" either attacking or defending their choice.

Context. Learn it. It'd help. I was arguing against his defense of booth babes (That they like it and hence their jobs should remain) because I don't think that it's plausible to believe women have their dreams tied to this job, so there's little harm to removing it for them. But wait! Oh hey! Look! There's more to the post that you quoted!? Funny that~! But hey, the surprisingly elusive first half of my post seemed to evade you the first time so I'll quote it here with some bolded bits for good measure:

That reminds me of my last convention. I was with my little brother and both of us were extremely excited to see the Child of Eden Kinect area free. He ran up to it and I followed. We were immediately drawn by the pretty colours and the previews we saw of the game. He started playing and two booth babes tried to explain it to him but couldn't quite get their head around the game. I explained it (I read enough to know) to my brother and them. One of the two started telling me that they were only introduced to the game (and by the sounds of it, gaming) that morning and were just told to stand around all day.

It's awkward. I was interested in and drawn to the game, as was my brother, yet here were two ladies in short tight shorts and shirts clearly in a very uncomfortable place. They don't know gaming and if they did, I'm sure that's not the costumes they'd wear to the convention. I don't gawk (I have manners) and I don't feel uncomfortable around women (Pretty females aren't a rarity) but I couldn't help but feel embarrassed for being part of a place where that kind of shallow pandering is the 'appropriate' way of drawing people. In the normal world we would've spoken like people and I would've thought nothing of it, in the perverse world of the convention, she was bait and I felt like a creep just for being a male gamer.

I'm not a sexually repressed desperate tween and I take offense to being treated as such. I felt sorry for the woman and wished her luck dealing with the rest of the day. By the end of the day I refused to buy from stalls/booths that used women like that (Scoffing at one particular jerk who had his 'friend' in a succubus outfit, she did not look very happy either).

I hate the implications the existence of booth babes in gaming conventions has for me, as part of the community who attends some of these conventions. Do I like approve of this kind of pandering in other media or strip clubs? No, but frankly, that's of little concern to me. If I did want to say something about it I probably wouldn't go to a gaming site to do so. Shockingly, my post to a gaming related article on a gaming culture website actually pertains to an issue that specifically concerns gaming culture.

tl;dr: No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying "Do you really believe that women love this job so much that we need to keep it despite the implications it has for the gaming community? - If you really desire that kind of pandering, go somewhere else where it does not impact the gaming community (And where, if you truly crave for such things, you'll get the full show).

Edit to avoid a double post:

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.

Well, I doubt it's minimum wage, else they'd probably be working at McDonalds or something.

Personally I don't see how they do any bad, to be honest. Is it because they use sex-appeal to sell a product? If people fail to look past what is obviously meant to be an initial eye-catcher ("Oooh, look, pretty girls! I wonder what their product is about."), then that's their fault, quite frankly. Don't take it out on the poor girl who're only trying to do their job.

Sorry for the wait, it's been a busy week.

It's the implications they (Or more specifically, their job) have for the gaming community, mainly that we're a bunch of slack-jawed socially repressed young men that can be bought over with such shallow pandering. It's discomforting to me. I go to these conventions for the gaming, not to be treated like a perverted dimwit. The gaming community is expanding and changing and I think conventions need to change to accommodate this (and hopefully some of the games, but that's an issue for another thread).

Just to reinstate my view, I don't actually have any ill-will towards the individual women who are booth babes, my issue is with the idea of booth babes and the companies that keeping putting them there. Honestly if it's an issue of economics (As in, the fear that there will be less jobs), hire individuals who know games and let them do their job in more appropriate outfits (And yes, there's no reason why they couldn't be female. xD).

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

btw-aniother thing

the picture you refered-the male sodier&/marine which "kissed" a girl the V-J Day picture

this was no kiss of love


it was sexual harassment


the women told the story afterwards, she didnt even knew him, he came to her, grabber her and kissed her AGAINST HER WILL.

you mght notice that she has a fist and clings to her dress. and this is a series, on one picture you see how she tries to push him away-but got so overpowered (and it came out of nowhere, so she had no warning, couldn't shield herself for that..)


everytime is see that picture, i see sexism and rape culture, i see an asshole who grabs a to him unknown women and sticks his tongue in her mouth witout asking because "we win, therefore the women is my toy" or whatever the shithead was thinking. and i see a photographer who might have seen that the victim didnt wanted to be kissed-but published the picture nonetheless. and i see a society which like to ignore the shit-dark-and yucktastic side of that picture although the information about that is available. but nobody likes to get their icon defiled.


so-its interesting that these two pictures hve a bit similarity-the ww2party-foto is worse because the booth babe have choosen to work (and i am the last to say its wrong to wear this stuff or to work like that-i just say that this will make a hellot of people-men and women feel shitty and insecure and will drive them rather away from the booth than to the booth. so this might just not be that good of an idea.


and yeah, i see the problem with the other photo as well-but i see also the problem with the guy-maybe nobody taght him that ist very very very rude to stare that way. its just is-if you are to awkward, go away, calm down, approach again. but dont stand there, open mouth like a dog wanting to drink. its just demeaning and rude and such behaviour needs to be called out-just to learn it. just dont stare-approach, talk, whatever, but dont treat persons like they are food or something like that.