#everyonegames

The good:

- Overall really welcoming atmosphere. People weren't rude or creepy. People weren't judgmental. People were really friendly. If anything, people were too friendly, as there was a little less attention paid to respecting personal space than I would have liked. Overall, really friendly and welcoming, though.

- Cosplay scene was small, but great. Everyone seemed to love my cosplays, and everyone seemed appreciative of the work that the few cosplayers there put into their outfits. The ballgowns got an overwhelmingly positive response, two people recognized my Lady Blackpearl cosplay (I guess a queer character from an old obscure JRPG was the right choice for this con!), and I wasn't creeped on at all even in my sexy Kanaya cosplay. Everyone really loved nachttour's ballgown Aradia cosplay, which was really great. :]

- Panels were generally good. There were exceptions, but overall, the panels were great. I'll give special mention to Finding a Good Fit and Education and Understanding of Queer Lifestyles for being particularly quality panels. It's nice to see more serious panels at conventions, as I am interested in scholarly critical analysis, cultural critique, and critical and ideological theory more than I am in in-character ask panels or celebrity guest Q&A panels (typical con panel fare). 

- It was really cool that the badges had a space for preferred pronouns, though this system could have been implemented a little better (I have sent the convention an email with my suggestions).

- It was really rad to play all of the indie games set up. I was disappointed that Crystal Warrior Ke$ha was replaced by another game, but I enjoyed most everything I played. A Perfect Woman was especially fun, and the trajectory of my life was pretty accurate to my personality and good for a laugh. (I also talked with the developer for a bit, which was nice.) I didn't get to play all the games, but I enjoyed most of the ones that I did play.

- Overall, really well organized and well-run con. Things seemed to start and end on time, signage was decent (with a few exceptions detailed below), scheduling was good, programming guide was good, location was pretty nice, etc.

The bad:

- I might as well start off with my gripes about the signage, since I mentioned it just above. First of all, the gender neutral bathrooms were on different floors than were listed in the programming guide, and while there were signs around giving the new location, and I'm sure that there was a good reason for the switch, this had potential to cause some issues, especially for those who are less mobile. Not a huge deal, though, since the signage was accurate. My main problem was with the stairs -- on Saturday, there were signs telling people to use the stairs (with an implied "if able to"), and the stairs were fairly easy to find, with clearly marked entrance and exit doors. However, on Sunday, the clearly marked stairs signs were gone, and maps of the hotel were difficult to access (typically in a crowded elevator lobby), so it was difficult to find the stairs. I went towards what I thought was the stairs at one point, and was stopped by a staff member who told me to get in line for a panel rather than helping me find where I was trying to go. Not a huge deal, and if one of the biggest issues with this con was lack of signage, then I'd say it was successful.

- Along the lines of lack of signage, there was a lack of panel descriptions. Some panels had descriptions on the website, but not all did, and there was a lack of descriptions in the programming guide. This made it difficult to decide which panels to attend (especially if there were multiple interesting-sounding panels at the same time), since some of the titles were vague. (I also went to one panel that wasn't at all what I expected, and I probably would have gone to another panel at the same time had I known what it was actually going to be about, since it wasn't an area of interest of mine.)

- Panels. Yes. Most of the ones I went to ranged from excellent to decent. There was one panel, however, that was actually really problematic, to the point of being almost offensively bad. This panel focused mainly on (cis)men, with only a few side mentions of other gender identities (though did touch a little on a potential variety of masculine presentation). It also perpetuated harmful stereotypes and narratives that would, when examined for more than a few moments, would be seen for how problematic they are (there is very little wiggle room on interpretation on how one of these particular narratives could be positive, if one knows the cultural history behind it). There were other stereotypes and narratives that were put forth that are far more complicated than the panel seemed to give credit to, and it seemed to accept certain stereotypes and narratives as being an automatic and unqualified Good Thing, when the reality is much more complicated, and when some of these stereotypes can easily be interpreted either way (and that I personally interpret as harmful to perpetuate). I was shaking my head in disbelief and sometimes disgust during this particular panel. It was easily one of the most negative experiences I had at this con.

- I was really happy with the diversity in the attendees and the topics presented on the panels, and I was pleasantly surprised at the level of trans inclusivity and awareness at the panels I attended, but I feel like this could have gone a lot farther. As usual with this type of discourse, it felt like the main focus was on gay (cis)men and (straight-coded) (cis)women, with other groups making an appearance but not being as much of the focus. I attended panels by or heard mention by panelists of most sexual and gender minority groups (there was a noticeable lack of asexual and aromantic awareness though -- I didn't personally hear a single mention of these groups), but gay (cis)men and (cis)women seemed to be the assumed focus for much of the conversation I heard. There were also some moments where I felt that someone who identified as non-binary would be uncomfortable, as there were a few comments by panelists that assumed binary genders. I would like to see more awareness of different groups, and perhaps more awareness and utilization of "queer" as a political and identity category (rather than as simply a descriptor), awareness that would acknowledge that "queer" is about a plurality of non-mainstream ways of existence, and is about destabilizing the hegemonic rather than making the margins acceptable. (I realize that these are problematic [in some ways, but powerful in many others] and specific politics, and I'm not looking for this con to be about a single political movement. What I am looking for is an awareness of "queer" as strange and plural and massive and individual, rather than as massive single-identity groups. I feel that this awareness would bring in more inclusion of people who feel marginalized even by the core of the LGBTQ+ community [using that acronym rather than a more inclusive one to make a point].)

Though, I did see one booth in the exhibit hall selling asexual pride merch, and I heard that someone asked at a Bioware panel about including asexual romance in their games, so maybe I should qualify my above statement about not seeing any asexual inclusion -- but only a little. (I believe the booth with asexual pride merch was next to a booth with uncensored pornography on display -- it's an 18+ con, whatever, but it seems a bit ironic to have something so sexual displayed so close to a booth with items for a group who may be repulsed by such images, especially at a con about inclusion of all sexual identities!)

(Kind of a minor thing, but I think it speaks to the general atmosphere of inclusion at this con.)

- Speaking of panels and the types of discourse involved, I was actually really surprised at how low the level of discourse was at this convention. It was probably fine for the average convention goer, and it was certainly a higher level of discourse about these topics than at any other fandom-related convention I've attended, but for someone like myself who is steeped in cultural critical theory and in ideological analysis and deconstruction, there was surprisingly little to go off of. Some of the more interesting panels were about personal experiences being queer (and fat, and a professor, etc.) and a gamer (gaming professor, etc.), and not the panels (or parts of panels) that talked about the actual content of games. I would have liked to see panels or varying levels of discourse and on varying topics -- panels about personal experiences, panels about representation in games and the content of games, panels about ideological concerns in gaming, etc. -- rather than only hearing about representation.

Since I have some political issues with simply looking at representation (especially in the way that it seemed to be looked at in many of these panels), and because I actually really don't care all that much about pure representation as a concern, I found that a lot of this information was not at all helpful or interesting. I would have liked to have seen panels that dealt with how games interact with ideologies, or panels about critical and theoretical analysis of games, or even a panel on why "good representation" is a problematic concept and not the end-all-be-all of queer interest or issues in games. (If this con comes back at a future date, I will gladly run some of these panels, by the way.) A lot of the discourse of this con seemed to take "good representation" as an objective standard (or even a goal to attain) without really examining what "good" representation means, or what seeing oneself in a game really means, or what it means for a non-queer player to see themself in a queer character, or how "good" representation cannot exist because a character cannot be all things to all people and perfectly politically positive (to all politics, even to all subversive politics) all of the time, etc. etc. I would have liked to see more on how ideology, the game industry, etc. shapes the ways that game characters are created, and how these characters relate back to (and reinforce and/or subvert) larger discourses, and how players can take these characters and interpret them in ways never indented, etc. There tended to be a lot of assumption that there is Meaning and Truth behind representations, rather than looking for the multitude of meanings and truths and how and why these meanings exist and what potential they have. It's more an issue of not being able to look beyond a certain preoccupation to see other issues or to be able to really look at and examine the current preoccupation than it is with the preoccupation itself being bad, if that makes sense.

Even without looking at "good representation" in games, the level of discourse was still surprisingly low, with very little theoretical or really even deep personal thought or ideas behind it. Overall, the panels were good, and I felt that I got a lot out of going to this convention (I would attend again in a heartbeat), but I felt like I was a player used to hard mode who was forced to go back and play easy and normal modes. (Is reading Donna Haraway hard mode in this analogy? I think so.) It isn't that the game is bad, or that easy and normal modes aren't well-balanced for players at that level -- it's that there didn't seem to be a high enough difficulty setting for those of us who wanted it. (If I had to switch over to a school analogy, I would say that the level of discourse was probably undergraduate level -- some of it was those lower-division classes that feel like high school classes, some of it was good solid lower-division classes, and some of it was easier upper-division classes, but I'd like something that is more like a harder upper-division class or even on a graduate level. Having the option for differing levels of discourse over the course of the con would have been fantastic.)

Also, I'm not kidding about being willing to run panels. If someone from the con is reading this, hit me up. It wouldn't be my first time in a classroom-like setting or even giving a scholarly panel at a fandom-related convention. If I end up knowing about it in enough time, I'll probably even end up submitting some ideas. 

I would say that in the overall analysis, this was a really good, positive convention with a really positive atmosphere. I enjoyed all the panels I went to but that one I mentioned above. As I've said, I would gladly attend again,and even contribute to this convention, but there are some improvements that could be made. :]