Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Jessica Nigri asked to leave? Why?
Posts
Well I'm the only person who's used that phrase I think, so I assume you're talking to me (unless I missed something). There's no "or whatever" about it - telling women to restrict what they wear, but not men, based on the idea that the woman might be so attractive that other people can't comport themselves properly could possibly be definition #2 if Webster had the stones to put it in his dictionary.
But the answer is answered relatively simply by noting that "indecent exposure" is a law that trumps the Convention Center OR PAX's policy decisions. Heh.
You're not wrong obvs - it *IS* pandering. But there's plenty of allowed forms of pandering (isn't swag pandering? I would NOT have watched that Underdark video if I couldn't get a picture with Lloth after) right down to which games developers choose to demo, so that doesn't seem to be the "metric" being used to determine what is and isn't okay.
I don't think the "hypocrite" word is appropriate like some seem to, since it implies a certain intent - but it seems as though they tried to set a standard that was very difficult to enforce, and ran into the problem of enforcing it.
Let's be realistic, the gender demographics at PAX skew probably 90 - 95% male, so obviously a scantily clad female is going cause far more problems with horndogs that can't control themselves that a scantily clad men would. What would a scantily clad man look like anyways? I certainly didn't see any at the show.
This is crazy! This girl was hired for the express purpose of promoting the lead character in Lollipop Chainsaw, which I'm sure Jerry and Mike are already familiar with the character design. If they take offense to the costume, the should equally take offense with the way the character is designed in the game itself. Therefore, they shouldn't even be letting Lollipop Chainsaw be displayed on the floor in the first place. This is not the same as what you would see in any (insert generic car/boat show name) where you can't throw a rock and not hit some string bikini clad model drooling and crawling all over the latest sports car or boat. Sex sells is all these type of shows care about. If you continue to make and buy games using these types of characters, you can't be offended when the same company decides to pay actors/models to dress up as these same characters. So, it's perfectly fine to have Laura Croft strut around in extremely tight hot shorts and sporting a shirt 4 sizes to small, but no, you can't have an actress do the same thing to promote the game? Let's see, it's highly acceptable to parade around a cast of female fighters in Soul Caliber V that would probably spend at most $10 combined on a clothing budget, but it's not right to have anyone hired by the company to dress as these characters and promote the game? Oh, and let's not forget all the various states of undress that are displayed by any number of female characters in American and Japanese role playing games.
It IS hypocrisy, a double standard, in bad faith, double dealing, bigoted, and any number of synonyms you could pull from the american dictionary. You don't want a company to pay someone to dress as a character from that company's game, but it's perfectly ok for someone to do it for free. What does money or any physical knowledge of the game have to do with this at all????????? And what does this say of any parent who condones this? Ok, Suzie, it's perfectly acceptable for you to go to Pax and dress as the homicidal, extremely cleavage engorged nurse from that Skullgirls videogame you like, but if the developers want to hire you to go on an american tour promoting the game, then no, it would not be ok at all. Mmmmm, the only reason that sounds kind of logical here is that you wouldn't want your little girl dressing like a tramp for money.
And don't even get me started on what this says about the way the video game industry as a whole promotes and treats women in general. No, wait, PLEASE get me started.
I'm not okay with PAX becoming like E3 with underdressed and uninformed "exhibitors." Gives off the wrong impression to people who are already wary of games. Think about it this way -- would you rather the pictures in your local newspaper's PAX coverage be gamers playing games, or pics of Jessica Nigri with fans?
Yes, there are indecency laws everywhere but they are exactly that, LAWS! It's not a loose specification created by two guys who may be to afraid offend the moral majority, who might say bad things about them...
BMX XXX would never be approved for a spot on the Expo hall floor initally, sir.
Try again. This isn't AVN. This is PAX.
So you are saying that if a man cannot control himself in front of a woman because of the way she is dressed it is the woman's fault? You're ostensibly saying the same thing that a police officer in Canada said that sparked international protests. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk This type of thought should not enter into the conversation because not only is it wrong it is also not the reason for the no booth babe policy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the original intent of the "no booth babe policy" was to prevent the atmosphere of sexual exploitation that inevitably accompanies booth babes (and hunks) because that is something that the community does not want. The policy I believe, also allows for people who are hired to dress up as characters from the games they are promoting. The problem in this situation comes from the fact that:
1) Jessica Nigri was following policy since she was dressed as the character and was quite knowledgeable of the game in question.
2) Robert Khoo said to Kotaku that the reason Jessica was forced to change out of costume was to maintain a family friendly atmosphere at PAX when PAX is most definitely not family friendly as others have pointed out.
A person cosplaying willfully chooses to put on a costume because he or she loves the character/franchise/whatever. A person put into a bathing suit to sell games is exploiting women to make a buck. That the woman in this case was cool with it doesn't matter: it still is making money off treating women as objects. Unfortunate for her, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good.
The game in question has elements that are objectionable to me, but if we got rid of any game with the slightest hint of misogyny, then the Expo Hall would pretty much be indie titles (hey, that actually sounds like a decent idea...). It's also clear that a lot of women that cosplay aren't super comfortable with their costumes, but have almost dick for choices if they want to represent a franchise or game that they like. This is a whole other issue to discuss, but keep in mind that the gaming industry is still very much a boys' club. It'd be nice if PAX could help change that.
Back to the specific example here: Lollipop Chainsaw didn't need to play up the main character to sell the game. Their booth already had a cool, run-down school bus thing going on. What, exactly, did having the character in cosplay add to this? I found the booth eye-catching BEFORE even seeing the cosplayer there. The character is brand-new, so it's not like it'd be a memorable character that people would recognize. It was an attractive woman in a skimpy outfit meant to draw guys there. If you can't see this for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you.
The morality of it has nothing to do with modesty. It's a convention brought to you by a 13+ comic, so adults should be aware of that before bringing the kids. The human body is awesome, and most of us enjoying seeing it. The issue here is dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing BUT that human body, and it's simply for the sake of making a buck. It's creepy and turns half the human population off this hobby.
The end result, once she provoked PAX to *need* to give a ruling on Friday's outfit, was that it was not acceptable, probably in light of the fact that she had by then pushed past the rule line.
That she got away with it on Friday does not mean it was acceptable; it means that because there were thousands of things being taken care of by mere dozens of people, it got missed. Other booth-babe-like behaviors also got missed. We still teach children not to cheat or steal just because other people get away with it. That other booth babes did not get called out does not mean that they were acceptable, just that any body of (mostly voluntary) human beings trying to get people to play by the rules is going to be imperfect. Imperfect is not the same as hypocritical.
Here is my 2 cents about this:
I do understand the policy about booth babes. Not everyone is going to like, or even feel comfortable, being around dozens of scantily clad women loitering around booths only to look sexy and know nothing about the product. (Though, if the girls make the choice to want to work as a booth babe, that is their right and I am not going to badmouth them. Their life - their choice.) I think what needs to be reflected upon is what would be the difference between a booth babe or a prompter who may resemble a booth babe.
Taking Lollipop Chainsaw as an example - what if Jessica was taking on Juliet's character, and was there to represent the game's protagonist as an interactive "Talk to Juliet - the heroine of Lollipop Chainsaw" element of the booth? Of course, she would have to be well versed in the game's story as well as Juliet's story and background, which would obviously hold up to the idea of staff knowing about the game/product they are promoting. Would she still be considered a booth babe then?
If a girl (or anyone for that matter) was hired to represent a company or a game that is on display at PAX, I think that if they know enough about the product and can legitimately answer questions and interact with the convention's attendees in a decent way, I see no harm in that. After all, they would be considered an employee representing that company at that time. Now, if the girl/guy in question knew nothing about the company/product at all and was just standing there to bring in attention, that I would consider inappropriate and a breach of PAX's booth babe policy.
The booth babe policy that is in place is not at all a bad idea, but I think that it could be fine-tuned slightly. If a company hires someone to represent a character, and make sure they are well versed as the character they are representing, as well being versed with story of the game, I think that is fine to be at PAX - as long as they're not just there to stand around and look pretty for pictures. As an interactive "Meet *insert character name here" and ask them questions!" aspect to a booth, I think that would be acceptable, and even very fun. If you're really excited about an upcoming game, or about a new game in a series, what wouldn't be appealing about that?
What it all comes down to, in the end, is semantics. If you have a policy - make it clear not only in the wording of the policy, but in advising exhibitioners about it so incidents like this don't have to happen again. Make it clear that all employees of a booth need to have at least some basic and possibly some specific knowledge about the company or product - that no one should just be there to stand around and look pretty. I don't think that would be that hard to do.
On a side note: I think Jessica did a great job representing Juliet when it comes to cosplay.
So can you answer for us how it is okay to allow violent scenes of death to be displayed but not suggestive sexuality?
I think you're totally glossing over the direct quote from Robert Khoo, where he said the removal of booth babes was to make the show family oriented. See: Kotaku quote i posted earlier.
Let me draw you up another example. Sunday, i was sitting at the Alienware booth enjoying some LoL gaming. They had a commentator kind of commenting on what was going on, but he clearly didn't care/clearly understand the finer aspects of LoL. He was a man with a loud voice that fit an athletic build profile hired to commentate to make it look badass. Was he dehumanized because he was used for his voice/appearance?
The fact of the matter is that the PAX Community voted on this 2 years ago. Well, it's been 2 years, and this issue has come up in both years since. I think there should be a re-vote, in order to avoid further controversy. Either that, or the guidelines for cosplay apparel need to be spread to both exhibitors and cosplayers alike.
Think with your 12 year old mind here: Boobs are boobs. Skin is skin. What the fuck difference does it make if it's an exhibitor, who CHOOSES to wear that outfit [the dehumanization argument is bullshit. If these women truly felt dehumanized or exploited... they wouldn't do it. duh.] And again - maybe i gave the PAX community too much credit, but I would think most of the people [especially on these forums] would be able to see beyond the 'sex sells' aspect.
I sure hope none of you who object to this ever go to a public beach. god forbid, you may go blind from what you see.
They're not censoring the game. You could have gone in and played Lollipop Chainsaw (or watched the video or whatever it was, I wasn't paying attention as the premise seemed awfully stupid to me). What they are doing is taking the booth babe out, which the community has overwhelmingly supported, because it makes people uncomfortable. This does include families with young children in the sample of "people that are uncomfortable,"
1 main problem I care to bring up is that while yes, booth babes may draw people to your booth, how many people do they turn away? I'm in the turn away category, I like women, don't like scantily clad booth babes trying to shill a game. It makes me uncomfortable and I just wanna check out the game on its own merits.
PAXs "Family friendly" idea, in my opinion, implies more of a "safe environment for everyone attending". If something makes you uncomfortable at the convention, you probably wont go. As an example I've lived in San Diego all my life and don't go to comic-con anymore because the community and convention environment is hostile, sexist, and rude. Porn stars lining up to show you their pictures and get you to subscribe to their website, booth babes getting way to close and asking you for your email and contact info etc, even fliers for escort services get handed out. It wasn't like this 6 years ago, but it got worse and worse with more and more booth babes every year.
I'm not trying to create hyperbole here, but PAX is probably the one convention that I've gone to where I have felt comfortable randomly talking to people and just hanging out. This is due to the environment that is strictly enforced of "don't be a dick, we're all friends, and this is a community event, not a sales/hype machine".
Say what you will about how it's unfair, but if the rule doesn't get enforced then there is no reason to have it. The fact that she was just asked to please cover up and enjoy the rest of the con is more than reasonable, it wasn't entirely her fault, and that is hardly a punishment.
Sorry, but have you even read the rest of the topic? The reason it's frowned upon to use 'booth babes' to represent a game is because it's just attracting people in for the boobs, and not the game itself.
Please don't bring Jerry and Mike into this, they didn't say anything themselves about it. They probably weren't even aware of the situation at the time.
Going to PAX East 2013/14 is my biggest goal right now. I plan to achieve it...
So then spec ops should've been thrown off the floor too, right? It seems as if they were marketing their game with extreme gore and visceral war realism that makes people uncomfortable, right? If we're going to turn this into that argument, then the only games that should ever be on the floor are e-t rated titles with no inferrence of sexuality or realistic violence, because immorality is still immoral, regardless of whether its just a costume or an explicitly displayed death/torture/likewise.
Also, is this topic not bumping up to the top when people reply to it for you guys too? I had to subscribe to receive notifications.
Then, as it gets bigger and more mainstream, it's being perverted into this cosplay=scantily clad women. If you want to have sexy characters in your game, no big deal, I can avoid your booth. I can also understand regular attendies wanting to dress up because, hey, that's how they enjoy the con themselves, and they're just as much a consumer as I am.
I'm totally fine with drawing the line at paying people to promote your game by standing there. I don't care that that's what the character looks like. I don't want to see spartan 300-style men wandering around either. PAX has always been about sharing nerd culture with people who are like each other. It's about sharing an experience. If I was being loud and people complained about me, I'd expect to get removed, too.
She was paid to attend the convention in a skimpy outfit. I don't care if she enjoyed it or not. Either come as an unpaid person--a regular attendie--or face the consequences of trying to violate the rules.
My wife was really impressed with the variety of people at PAX, in terms of age, gender and race. This rule was created by our community which values inclusion and a safe place to play and PAX should be applauded for NOT taking the easy route of anything goes.
Pretty sure you're not allowed to bring weapons into the expo, and really really really not allowed to be violent at all.
in fact, there are hard and fast rules about cosplay weapons as well. So no, you're completely wrong.
No one is complaining about the sexual content in the game.
Is there an established sarcasm emoticon yet for the internet? I feel like I needed one now.
http://www.destructoid.com/pax-mr-destructoid-shows-off-his-muscles-225412.phtml
There was a shirtless man wearing the Destructoid helmet. I'm not sure if he was paid by Destructoid, but according to the link above, Destructoid was at least aware of and sponsoring his shirtlessness:
"Every PAX we let the community wear the Mr. Destructoid helmet. This year for PAX East we've given the helmet duties to community member Jacob "N7" Harder. Jacob also happens to be a professional body builder (seriously) so we let him loose on the show floor without a shirt! "
Here's a pic of him with Mike Krahulik:
http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/photo-m.phtml?post_key=225467&photo_key=220031
And...I don't know if this is the same guy, but here's a pic of a Destructoid robot on the show floor wearing just the robot head, briefs, and sneakers:
http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/photo-m.phtml?photo_key=220091&post_key=225467
When asked if this guy (guys?) were similarly asked to put on a hoodie or cover up, Mike Krahulik responded, "Not that I know of."
Here is a quote from that article:
From what people are saying, Nigri was educated about the product, was not displaying nudity (partial or otherwise) and was dressed like a character from the game that is wearing revealing clothing.
Someone mentioned that WB should have checked with PAX first regarding the outfit. Maybe they should have, but my question is "What would the response have been?" The outfit as it stands is in line with PAX policy.
Let's be realistic,
if you can't control your sexual desires in public, to the point of seeing an attractive woman would make you lose control, i suggest you check out of society for awhile...
Just my two cents, but given she looks like she's about to have a wardrobe malfunction in that second outfit i would say it definitely constitutes as partial nudity. The bottom stops barely above the vajayjay and I think the only think keeping her from a nip slip is black magic.
The issue appears to be with the pink outfit which brought entirely to much attention to her so that even after she changed the damage was already done.
1- I wholeheartedly agree with Ransim
2- I think Lolipop girl knew very well what she was doing and what she was trying to accomplish (if not her, then the people she represented). She/they did get a warning, they chose to keep on going with the theme, they got burned.
3- Girlfriend and I had a discussion about that. Why would cosplayers be left alone (then again, there must be limits there as well) and companies be more scrutinized? Simple. Cosplayers are there for fun, the exhibitors are trying to sell, and the community has voted a long time ago that they don't agree with these kinds of business methods. Khoo went on to say that this is also a family type event, so I'm sure that if cosplayers went overboard, they would have been warned as well, but the fact is that both represent different situations, and thus are subject to different rules. I don't have an answer about cosplayers, but personally speaking I don't like it when a vendor tries to sell me anything by showing as much cleavage as possible. Not cool.
[RSS Feed] Episode # 10 is up ~ Eastward Bound to Boston ~ Community Podcast on PAX East
Steam ~ Twitter ~ Google+
Oops, maybe I should have clarified. I personally think the pink outfit is a bit much. Disagree that it is partial nudity. Partial nudity has long been used by the movie industry to refer to showing a quick glimpse of a naughty bit (also they usually refer to a bare ass as partial nudity).
However, what I was referring to was the fact that her previous costume also suddenly became "against the rules". I'm not referring here to the supposed hypocrisy of allowing it one day and not the next. I understand that it can take time to enforce the rules after receiving complaints. I'm referring to the fact that at some point (doesn't matter when) an outfit that I can't imagine anyone saying is "Partial Nudity" (the cheerleading one) was not allowed. This seems to go against the stated policy as chosen by the community.
Nigri's second costume clearly crossed the line of decorum for the event. Heck, that would be turning heads at AVN. Had she kept the first costume for the duration this is a non-issue.
Khoo handled this as best he could. No way they can let that second costume stand. Anyone in the building wearing that would be asked to leave.
For more on this, look at gabe's post today about that and other things.
http://penny-arcade.com/2012/04/09/my-big-pax-post