It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

Brb, putting my Cloud haircut on

Do we know if the Lightning returns event is returning this year?

Sec, bomb agro

K, need a lift out of this thread? Hop in my Regalia if you want.

Sent from my Magitek Walker

---

You're bringing up game aesthetic features to make an argument for world aesthetic. Though a hairstyle is hardly worldbreaking and as far as the Regalia and Magitek Walker are concerned: magitek exists in a variety different ways already, so again, not very worldbreaking for them to exist.

Lightning showing up could also be explained since it's already been proven that other realms exist outside of Hydaelyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

You're bringing up game aesthetic features to make an argument for world aesthetic. Though a hairstyle is hardly worldbreaking and as far as the Regalia and Magitek Walker are concerned: magitek exists in a variety different ways already, so again, not very worldbreaking for them to exist.

Lightning showing up could also be explained since it's already been proven that other realms exist outside of Hydaelyn.

---

So those things are fine but someone wearing pajamas isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kohl

Then it shouldn't matter to you what people have as glamours and you do not need a way to mute it. Since it doesn't matter.

---

Yes it barely matters to me, especially when it comes to values. Would just be a nice feature to have that would potentially increase my entertainment playing this game. That's what's important in this game: entertainment, not values. Unless the resources needed to implement this option would hinder other developments, this optional client-side feature wouldn't decrease anyone's enjoyment of the game while it would increase enjoyment for the ones that wish to use it.

Yeah because metal armor are known for protecting people from skycrapper sized dragon's claw and from explosion the size of a football stadium. Hydaelin protection works as well on magic steel armor as it works on that wedding dress wearing dark knight. If you came on a MMO expecting immersion I have bad news for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cithaerias_pyropina

So those things are fine but someone wearing pajamas isn't?

---

Wearing pajamas in general is fine and not the point. Wearing pajamas during an emotional or distressing situation is absurd. It's like wearing them to a funeral.

Absolutely not. This is a community game whether you like it or not.

Many people put a lot of work into their glamours for the purpose of having their character look exactly how they want them to and do so because they want that work to be seen by other players.

The desire for an option to turn off the way another player wants their character to be perceived is both asinine and selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamRF

Thank you for standing up for us holy spammers. Spamming holy in towns is part of my identity, I feel unwelcome and threatened when I hear people are against this, the fact that there's an option to disable battle effects insults me beyond measure. Idk what I would do if I was unable to express my self this way, my existence would be futile. Why don't people understand they have no right to decide how I present myself!!?

---

It is because they are secretly luxophobic narcissists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shallot_Liltian

Absolutely not. This is a community game whether you like it or not.

Many people put a lot of work into their glamours for the purpose of having their character look exactly how they want them to and do so because they want that work to be seen by other players.

---

Ah, so it is not the attention seekers that are selfish, but us for wanting to retain our immersion. Got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Wearing pajamas in general is fine and not the point. Wearing pajamas during an emotional or distressing situation is absurd. It's like wearing them to a funeral.

---

Unlike a funeral, this is a game. Apples to oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shallot_Liltian

Absolutely not. This is a community game whether you like it or not.

Many people put a lot of work into their glamours for the purpose of having their character look exactly how they want them to and do so because they want that work to be seen by other players.

The desire for an option to turn off the way another player wants their character to be perceived is both asinine and selfish.

---

Well, when I use glamor it is to see myself better, as the rest see me, I can't care less.

It seems to me a curious option that should really be implemented since it does not harm anyone and only benefits a portecenaje of people who do not want to see cases like those exposed here that have often made me laugh at the absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayout

Well, when I use glamor it is to see myself better, as the rest see me, I can't care less.

It seems to me a curious option that should really be implemented since it does not harm anyone and only benefits a portecenaje of people who do not want to see cases like those exposed here that have often made me laugh at the absurd.

---

Depending on how the system work it could be a huge amount of work rather than a simple hide option. And this for a minor part of the community feeling opressed by something existing since the first MMO ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nariel

Depending on how the system work it could be a huge amount of work rather than a simple hide option. And this for a minor part of the community feeling opressed by something existing since the first MMO ever.

---

If it's purely client side, it isn't likely to require a significant amount of resources. The game already allows for other characters to appear different on the screen of other players based on a variety of client side specifications so it'd just be building off of what exists already.

Right, so somehow earlier I posted, edited in a reply and it didn't stick but stayed dormant inside the editing window. Reposting it here; if it reappears in the other post later, this is why.

I have realised that up until this point, I have been arguing from the assumption that a hypothetical glamour-blocking system would have to be an all-or-nothing toggle, not only because of the complexity of doing it at an individual level, but because that approach would do nothing to save "your immersion" from a complete stranger turning up in a dungeon-intro cutscene wearing nothing but a chocobo head and subligar.

Thus, I was arguing from the viewpoint that even though (I hope) my personal taste in glamour probably wouldn't warrant a block, it would be blocked nevertheless because someone wants to avoid seeing a small subset of glamours enough to turn everything off.

It's becoming evident now that people are arguing for selectively turning off individual people's glamours. That might not affect me at a personal level, but at a large-scale concept level it's an unpleasant potential slippery slope - which we are descending at alarming speed right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zabuza

So you're okay with people dressing in whatever they like as long as it is not offensive to you. You're not being completely consistent in the 'people can wear whatever they want' argument, because obviously you have exceptions. But we're not allowed to have those exceptions, right?

---

I realised as I wrote it that there's a degree of irony in the statement, but I was on my phone and already at the end of lunch break so I had to leave it unexplored and just planned to go back to it if someone questioned it.

I also dared to hope that I might not actually have to explain that a man wearing a dress is not inherently the same kind of offence as a man wearing the recognisable costume of a white supremacist group.

We're essentially sailing into the sort of legal debate that governments and judges have to go through to define laws. Where does one person's own right to do what they want in their own time crash into other people's right to not experience prejudice and hatred, or worse.

And quite simply, right now, I have a limited amount of time which I could spend either arguing here on the Internet with people I'm not going to convince of anything, or enjoying a new patch of FFXIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RognarB

The illusion of harmony is harmony. If it allows the most amount of people to co-exist peacefully even tho they may hold disdain for each other in private, then we've made a significant progress from all out war or conflict and harassment.
Thats tolerance.
Given that the only alternative from tolerance is population cleansing, its a pretty good thing and perhaps the best we can do.

We do live in a really awful world where you can never be sure how you're coming across to others. It sucks but even behind smiles and soft words, people are constantly judging each other wether they want it on not. Its human nature. The best we can hope for is to co-exist despite that fact and shield our eyes from things that offends us if thats the cost of co-existence, which is the option I'm arguing for.

---

This sounds like the sort of "perfect society" you'd get in a dystopian setting before the hero breaks out of it and realises it's all a lie.

Perhaps your hypthetical filter could just put everyone in identical black cloaks and masks?

Now, I'm off to play a game whose overarching themes celebrate individual diversity and how the differences between people make us stronger as a whole.

The "slippery slope" came in with the blacklist and mature language filters. Really, what is your problem with people being able to filter out individuals they don't care to see in a game? You can offer up all the feel-good buzzwords you like but it is not going to make them change their view of the matter.

And guess what - it's also an expression of individual diversity that not everyone likes and therefore chooses to engage with what others do when they express their individual diversity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

The "slippery slope" came in with the blacklist and mature language filters. Really, what is your problem with people being able to filter out individuals they don't care to see in a game? You can offer up all the feel-good buzzwords you like but it is not going to make them change their view of the matter.

And guess what - it's also an expression of individual diversity that not everyone likes and therefore chooses to engage with what others do when they express their individual diversity...

---

I think this post shows that people use glamor looking for a type of approval or recognition of "how they look" something that seems very pathetic to me lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayout

I think this post shows that people use glamor looking for a type of approval or recognition of "how they look" something that seems very pathetic to me lol

---

Oof careful now, you might have hit a sensitive spot. If this is the case I'd assume they won't be very emotionally stable individuals.

I got a problem with this.

This is a mmo, and taking away what someone picks to look like to you. Even if you don't like it, is going too far.


Comes a point where people who are offended by thongs, or binki need to just get over it. You are ok with killing monsters, creatures, and people..but showing skin is your limit? I don't really care, and the answer is no. It should not happen, and it won't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayout

I think this post shows that people use glamor looking for a type of approval or recognition of "how they look" something that seems very pathetic to me lol

---

Careful now, that logic can be used the other way around.


Are you that ugly that you can't stand seeing skin on fake characters? Why should the game pander to your insecurities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

And guess what - it's also an expression of individual diversity that not everyone likes and therefore chooses to engage with what others do when they express their individual diversity...

---

I'd say that "expressions of individual diversity" have limits, though. In general, I'd say your "expression of individual diversity" ends where it starts to directly erode my own rights. In particular, my right to exist in the same general vicinity as you do.

If someone objects to a woman being a senior engineer rather than being in the kitchen, and decides that they don't want to listen to me in a meeting (by pretending I'm just not there and not acknowledging me any time I speak), that is not "an expression of individual diversity", that is jackass behavior that directly affects my life and my job. (And unfortunately, behavior I've actually experienced. If I'm the freaking program lead and you insist on ignoring everything I say and talking to the junior engineer who's job-shadowing me just because he happens to be male, this meeting's going to be real awkward and we're probably not going to end up with our companies working together.)

And the same is true with objecting to anything that reminds you that gay people exist. Or trans people. Non-binary people. Women in general. People with different skin colors than your own. Etc.

I get that this is not what you're going for. ("Such prejudice! This was not my intention!") I'm assuming you—the generic "you", meaning "everyone in the thread arguing for this feature"—are saying that some folks prefer a tone for player-created content (i.e. outfits) which matches the tone of the dev-created content (i.e., the actual questlines/cutsenes). And while a shirtless warrior wearing a moogle head, a subligar, and fending greaves might (sort-of) fit in when you're doing the Hildibrand quests, that feels fairly out-of-place in Amaurot. And that can be extremely irritating, I agree! And whether or not that clash of tones bothers you is a matter of individual opinion; some people could really not care less if there's a giant Roegadyn chocobo tank, or if the healer is a miqo'te dude wearing only underwear. Others find it's like nails across a chalkboard every time they encounter it.

And I think that's where the core problem of this thread comes from. The folks who are speaking most vehemently for the conflicting positions here are literally seeing the issue as two entirely different things.

One side is saying "I would prefer not to see a dude in swim-trunks and sunglasses tanking in the emotional climax of Shadowbringers, and I don't think that there's a rational argument to be made for the fact that I should have to; why does it impact you if I push a button that says 'tanks must wear armor' and everyone goes on with life?" and basically viewing such a feature as enforcing a dress code and generally making it easier for everyone to get along. Which is perfectly rational; if I run an Italian restaurant, I can certainly say that you have to be wearing pants (or a skirt, or a dress, or whatever) if you want me to seat you and serve you. The fact you are a customer who would pay me does not mean I have to let you sit on the table in your underwear.

And seen that way it's wholly understandable that someone would go "look, I don't care what you wear—or don't wear—at home; in public, or at least in this restaurant, we wear pants. This makes everyone get along better in public. Please put on some pants and stop doing the Manderville on the table. You can call it 'personal expression', I call it 'disturbing the peace' and if you don't stop I'm going to call the police." From that standpoint, this request seems totally reasonable and probably fairly mild; it's no different than putting a sign on the door of that restaurant saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service". (Or in my hypothetical example, "no pants, no pasta".)

When approaching the matter from that angle, saying "I find this idea chilling" is ridiculous, because it seems self-evident that of course you can make rules in a restaurant that pants (or at least some form of lower-body clothing) are not optional but rather required. After all it seems absurd that anyone would cry 'personal expression' (and expect to be taken seriously) in response to "I don't care if you wear pants at home or walk around naked; more power to you. However, I would prefer you not walk around naked in my pizza joint for reasons of generally accepted standards of public decency (and also, y'know, general hygiene concerns, as well as a lack of desire to get sued for grease burns in sensitive spots)."

In fact, taken from that standpoint, it seems like this feature should be less objectionable than a dress code because it's not even saying "you have to put on pants here" but pushing a button that says "please make this customer appear to be wearing pants when I look at them, regardless of whether or not they see themselves as wearing pants." And then hey, everybody wins!

The other side of the argument, however, is looking at it from the standpoint of "there are people who think a masculine person in a dress is an abomination, and you want to give them a button to literally erase those people from the world? Why are we even discussing this as though that isn't appalling? Have I taken crazy pills?" And from that standpoint, this suggestion is downright horrifying; being able to push a button and turn the world into one where no one is anything you object to—where you don't have to see anyone who isn't straight, white, and conforming to gender stereotypes, or you don't have to see women in "men's jobs" or whatever else—is a deeply disturbing thought. And it becomes downright 'yikes' territory when—taken from that standpoint—it seems as though other folks are saying such a button promotes 'tolerance', because it basically comes across as "if all those pesky gay people/trans people/non-binary people/dark-skinned people/whatever would just stop insisting on going around existing publicly, then the people who object to them wouldn't be upset; everyone would get along better and the world would be more peaceful."

("Yikes factor five, Mr. Data. Engage.")

And when you look at it that way, yes, giving people a button that makes people whose existence offends them turn into something that aligns with their views will make things more civil in the short term, because now they no longer need to be reminded by a miqo'te dude in a dress that nonbinary folks exist. Or that darker-skinned people exist. Or any other class of people they find objectionable. But those folks won't see it as a button that is there to keep folks from dressing up like a giant moogle during the climactic moment before the final trial of 5.0, but rather that "the devs agree with me that I shouldn't have to see nonbinary folks/dark-skinned folks/whatever, and gave me the power to make the world better". It emboldens people by making them think that the majority share their opinions, even if most just don't say anything. And that reinforcement actually can affect their behavior in the offline world.

There's been psychological studies! (They're really kind of depressing, actually...)

So it also makes perfect sense that some people are wildly unsettled by the request for this feature and arm-flailing about "why are we even discussing this, this is horrifying."

And the biggest problem of all in this debate is that both of these viewpoints are right.

Because even if everyone in this particular thread would only use a "turn people into their default race/gender character appearance and wear the racial starting gear" option to not have to see a giant chocobo running around in Doma Castle when they're at an emotionally intense part of Stormblood's story, there would also be people out there who would use that feature because "a man in a dress is an abomination and no one should have to see that, so I'll push this button to make the dress go away". Or because "I don't like seeing dark-skinned characters; it's unrealistic that someone with skin that dark would be a hero. I'll push this button so they turn into the fair-skinned default character and then The World is Right."

Which I think the majority of folks here would agree is appalling, or at the very least deeply unsettling.

And yet not everyone would use it that way, and there are no small number who would just be like, "And here I am in the Praetorium for the first time, trying to enjoy the climax of A Realm Reborn and the culmination of what feels like an inordinate number of fetch quests, and the tank is in underwear and a Namazu head. Well, you're going on my glam blacklist, and I'm going back to the story." Which also seems wholly reasonable.

And that's why I also don't think this thread's likely to actually go anywhere useful: there's unlikely to be any agreement because the actual core view of this feature which people have is coming from two entirely separate—and wildly different, yet equally understandable—viewpoints. And so, unfortunately, I imagine neither side is terribly likely to yield.

(Also: yikes, I apologize for how wordy I got there. And possibly how often I used the word "yikes".)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cithaerias_pyropina

88 pages and 878 replies, as of this post. Seems like this thread is gaining as much dev traction as that support Blue Mage thread and Male Viera thread. And we all know they don't care about either of those.

Move along now, nothing to see here but the same 10 or 12 people falling into an unending echo chamber.

---

Because this many pages of replies MUST mean it should be ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shallot_Liltian

Absolutely not. This is a community game whether you like it or not.

Many people put a lot of work into their glamours for the purpose of having their character look exactly how they want them to and do so because they want that work to be seen by other players.

The desire for an option to turn off the way another player wants their character to be perceived is both asinine and selfish.

---

one sec..

Quote:

---

Absolutely. This is a community game whether you like it or not.

Many people put a lot of work into their backstories and RP-ing for the purpose of having their character be exactly who they want them to be and do so because they want that narrative to be consistent and coherant.

The desire to refuse an option to enhance the way another player wants their story and narrative to be play out that doesn't affect anyone in any perceivable way is both asinine and selfish

---

Does that help see the other side of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nariel

Depending on how the system work it could be a huge amount of work rather than a simple hide option. And this for a minor part of the community feeling opressed by something existing since the first MMO ever.

---

Lots of people aren't feeling "oppressed" though the demands that we have to experience someone elses creative "vision" no matter what are a little oppressive, we'd just like an option to customize our experience, something that has been in every mmo ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

I got a problem with this.

This is a mmo, and taking away what someone picks to look like to you. Even if you don't like it, is going too far.

---

Because... why? Nobody is specifically making their glamour to show ME. They would just like the world in general to experience it, and I have every right to dislike or not want to see it. I have no right to tell them to change it, It would be RUDE to tell them I hate it, but if I can change it on my computer, in my client, where they'd never know and we'd both have a better experience besides, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

Comes a point where people who are offended by thongs, or binki need to just get over it. You are ok with killing monsters, creatures, and people..but showing skin is your limit? I don't really care, and the answer is no. It should not happen, and it won't happen.

---

You're probably right that this won't happen, simply because it would take some work and the dev team is already mid-expansion grind. However the funny part is how judgemental you're being about people who dislike something. "If you don't like someone changing how your avatar looks, you should just get over it, don't be so offended".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

Because... why? Nobody is specifically making their glamour to show ME. They would just like the world in general to experience it, and I have every right to dislike or not want to see it. I have no right to tell them to change it, It would be RUDE to tell them I hate it, but if I can change it on my computer, in my client, where they'd never know and we'd both have a better experience besides, why not?

---

You can dislike it all you want, but I don't want you to have that option. That is all the reason I need. Your reason for not wanting to see it does not counter my reason for me want you to see it. I see no reason why it should happen.


If someone has a problem with thongs and what not, but are ok with murder. I really have a hard time with supporting said person. I mean did you protest when the storyline talked about forcing yourself on women? Did you get offended when it comes up a few times? I just want to call people out on this. Finding something displeasing to look at is not the end of the world, and taking away what I want you to see me as is and never should be an option because that is not what I want people to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packetdancer

(Also: yikes, I apologize for how wordy I got there. And possibly how often I used the word "yikes".)

---

I agree with what you are saying and it is a good read, that is why I don't try and stand on a moral high ground when I say no I don't want people to have this option.


I don't want players to have the option to pick what I look like to them. It is that simple, I need no reason, I need nothing to stand behind said statement. Someone being offended by an outfit does not give people more of a reason why it should be added to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

You can dislike it all you want, but I don't want you to have that option. That is all the reason I need. Your reason for not wanting to see it does not counter my reason for me want you to see it. I see no reason why it should happen.


If someone has a problem with thongs and what not, but are ok with murder. I really have a hard time with supporting said person. I mean did you protest when the storyline talked about forcing yourself on women? Did you get offended when it comes up a few times? I just want to call people out on this. Finding something displeasing to look at is not the end of the world, and taking away what I want you to see me as is and never should be an option because that is not what I want people to have.

---

The storyline you've mentioned is SUPPOSED to disgust you and shock you. Dude in the thong and the moogle head? Probably thinks he looks awesome and that it's hilarious. I have emotional reactions when I am say forced to kill someone who's become something horrid but was a good person before, that's part of the story. You know what isn't? Moogle head guy.

And of course I respect that you have likes and dislikes, so we'll chalk you up for a "No, because I don't want it". Generally it's more compelling of an argument to have logical backing behind a dislike though rather than just emotions.

Remember one thing. Square Enix ADDED THAT GEAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packetdancer

... (Also: yikes, I apologize for how wordy I got there. And possibly how often I used the word "yikes".)

---

As a philosophy and psychology student (formally in the past and currently as a "nerd"), I appreciate both that you took the time to write such a well thought out post, and your humanity in the number of "yikes" you used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

Because this many pages of replies MUST mean it should be ignored.

---

Many pages with the exact same arguments spouted by the exact same people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cithaerias_pyropina

Many pages with the exact same arguments spouted by the exact same people.

---

While the thread discussion has teetered on the same back and forth for a bit, the interest and likes on the initial posts show more than a couple people are on each side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

I agree with what you are saying and it is a good read, that is why I don't try and stand on a moral high ground when I say no I don't want people to have this option.


I don't want players to have the option to pick what I look like to them. It is that simple, I need no reason, I need nothing to stand behind said statement. Someone being offended by an outfit does not give people more of a reason why it should be added to the game.

---

Dude its not about being offended its about people looking like idiotic jackasses. And While I really don't care what someones glamour is and I could give or take this option. Your are just as pathetic as the person you are criticizing for wanting this option. Ok so you wanna look like an idiotic jackass that's fine ill just vote kick ya out of dungeons cause I run with enough peeps to do so. Is that better for ya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buchan88

Dude its not about being offended its about people looking like idiotic jackasses. And While I really don't care what someones glamour is and I could give or take this option. Your are just as pathetic as the person you are criticizing for wanting this option. Ok so you wanna look like an idiotic jackass that's fine ill just vote kick ya out of dungeons cause I run with enough peeps to do so. Is that better for ya?

---

I mean I think it's kinda thin skinned to kick someone out of a group for their glam if they're otherwise performing well, but that's your right if you really want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

You can dislike it all you want, but I don't want you to have that option. That is all the reason I need. Your reason for not wanting to see it does not counter my reason for me want you to see it. I see no reason why it should happen.


If someone has a problem with thongs and what not, but are ok with murder. I really have a hard time with supporting said person. I mean did you protest when the storyline talked about forcing yourself on women? Did you get offended when it comes up a few times? I just want to call people out on this. Finding something displeasing to look at is not the end of the world, and taking away what I want you to see me as is and never should be an option because that is not what I want people to have.

---

Yikes, way to miss the point. Lots of strawman here, by comparing showing skin to showing murder. This isn't about sensitivity or censorship. It's about a player's right to an immersive experience on the client side (so harmless to anyone else).

Let me ask you... do you think I don't want Big Bird in this image because I'm insecure and want to censor the image?

https://meme.xyz/uploads/posts/t/l-1...a-cutscene.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamRF

Yes it barely matters to me, especially when it comes to values. Would just be a nice feature to have that would potentially increase my entertainment playing this game. That's what's important in this game: entertainment, not values. Unless the resources needed to implement this option would hinder other developments, this optional client-side feature wouldn't decrease anyone's enjoyment of the game while it would increase enjoyment for the ones that wish to use it.

---

Everything I do is influenced by my values and how well I do, or do not, live up to them. I find it strange (and even unsettling) when people suggest that it is no big deal to separate your values from anything you do in your life. Maybe it's a flaw that I do not compartmentalize that way. Maybe it's how I express integrity.

If I knew there is was feature that allows other player to have even that small level of control of my character, and my expression through my "entertainment" would decrease my enjoyment of the game. There are other's that I am sure would feel the same. So, you are wrong there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kohl

Everything I do is influenced by my values and how well I do, or do not, live up to them. I find it strange (and even unsettling) when people suggest that it is no big deal to separate your values from anything you do in your life. Maybe it's a flaw that I do not compartmentalize that way. Maybe it's how I express integrity.

---

Its fine to be influenced by your values, and that is a great thing to have. However you cross a line when you use your own personal values to impose on and override someone elses values, which is what you are doing by being angry at this request. And no, you can't claim the opposite is also true because this request is a client side request, meaning it doesn't affect anyone except the user of the feature.

It does not affect you unless you start imposing your values onto the user of the feature, thus overriding their own values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

Yikes, way to miss the point. Lots of strawman here, by comparing showing skin to showing murder. This isn't about sensitivity or censorship. It's about a player's right to an immersive experience on the client side (so harmless to anyone else).

Let me ask you... do you think I don't want Big Bird in this image because I'm insecure and want to censor the image?

https://meme.xyz/uploads/posts/t/l-1...a-cutscene.jpg

---

Talking about Strawman my god...



I assumed that people are just offended, but are we really talking about immersion here? That is the reason? Being able to see people how you want them to be seen is immersive?




That is just silly.


The immersion thing does not hold water when this game itself has had some wacky crazy NPCS that dress up foolish. People wearing silly stuff into battle fits with the theme of the game.


So the immersion stance holds no water in the context of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

No matter what reason you come up with, no matter what grounds you stand on. It won't change people mind. I don't care about your immersion, Just like you don't care about my reasons for keeping it. The immersion thing does not hold water when this game itself has had some wacky crazy NPCS that dress up foolish. People wearing silly stuff into battle fits with the theme of the game.

---

Thats actually irrelevant, and you don't get to decide what people value in the game. When you talk about stances holding no water, any argument you could come up with falls flat when the fact that the change would be client side is brought up. This is about choice, its about people being able to play the way they want to play. You don't get to impose yourself on their play experience unless it begins to affect yours.

Your game would look the same, as would anyone elses game who decided not to use the feature. The only people who this would affect in the slightest, are those who want to make use of it. The fact that you are trying to deny someone their right to their own choice and values... idk man.

To those comparing the blacklist to blocking glams:

The blacklist is there to prevent bodies of text and other forms of direct contact being sent to you. It can be very easy to harass someone when you are using methods that are often unaffected by distance or location.

Can a glam attempt to sell gil to you?

Can a glam send unwanted fc and ls invites?

Can a glam send you tells with links to suspicious websites?

Can a glam advertise the sale of power leveling?

Can a glam be a good friend that, for whatever reason, ended up personally betraying you?

Can a glam break the ToS?

Is a glam able to continue to force itself onto your presence, without moving from their spot, even if you teleport away to a different zone? Even if you enter your locked house or an inn?

-----

A glam is just an outfit whose use is permitted by SE. Nothing more.

Glams cannot break the ToS, stalk you, spread rumours about you or betray you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

Thats actually irrelevant, and you don't get to decide what people value in the game. When you talk about stances holding no water, any argument you could come up with falls flat when the fact that the change would be client side is brought up. This is about choice, its about people being able to play the way they want to play. You don't get to impose yourself on their play experience unless it begins to affect yours.

Your game would look the same, as would anyone elses game who decided not to use the feature. The only people who this would affect in the slightest, are those who want to make use of it. The fact that you are trying to deny someone their right to their own choice and values... idk man.

---

Does not matter if my game is looking the same. I made my char to look for others just as much as myself. I don't want players to have that option. What more needs to be said? You don't really have a good enough reason to ruin what a MMO is to me.



Your reasons don't matter at the grand scheme of things. For every answer you come up with, I can say. Go play a single player game.



If you can't accept that players dress up for others just as much as for themselves in a game design around being social, well I don't know what to tell you. This option can break immersion for some players if we are going by that stance. Since how would I know if players see what I want to be seen as? Just silly.

Would love to see all those opposed to a mere client side toggle react to the racial model changes back when eq2 implmented the racial models for the asian market, and gave us the option in the states to toggle between the two, down to even choosing each race and gender toggle. Don't think much of a stink was brought up then for something character model bassed as compared to clothes.

How far society has degraded to complain about mere 'choice'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senliten

Would love to see all those opposed to a mere client side toggle react to the racial model changes back when eq2 implmented the racial models for the asian market, and gave us the option in the states to toggle between the two, down to even choosing each race and gender toggle. Don't think much of a stink was brought up then for something character model bassed as compared to clothes.

How far society has degraded to complain about mere 'choice'.

---

I was around during that time, and if you recall people was not happy on both sides. One side wanted to keep the old look. The other side wanted everyone to look the same. MMOS have come a long way since that time, and fashion has became sort of a end game for players. So this is another silly thing to bring up, as times have changed.

I'm actually surprised that this thread is still going. Me, ironically of all people.

This is a thing where people won't budge. I learned that 30+ pages ago.

So lets break this down.


"It is client side. What I see does not matter."

Cool, so when my woman wants us to wear matching outfits in real life. She does it just for herself. Not how other people see us right? Or how about this ring that I wear? It is not to show other people of our love? Since we are using immersion talk, I sure wish I had an option so I don't see certain clothing in real life. I mean after all, people do fashion just for themselves not for how others see you.



Here is a simple truth. Just like real life. People dress up for how others see you, not just for themselves. I know shocking right? So taking that part away, breaks the mmo and dare I say it..immmersion for said person.



My point is this, Whatever one side says the other side can say the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavaryen

So lets break this down.


"It is client side. What I see does not matter."

Cool, so when my woman wants us to wear matching outfits in real life. She does it just for herself. Not how other people see us right? Or how about this ring that I wear? It is not to show other people of our love? Since we are using immersion talk, I sure wish I had an option so I don't see certain clothing in real life. I mean after all, people do fashion just for themselves not for how others see you.



Here is a simple truth. Just like real life. People dress up for how others see you, not just for themselves. I know shocking right? So taking that part away, breaks the mmo and dare I say it..immmersion for said person.



My point is this, Whatever one side says the other side can say the same.

---

Real life rules do not apply to a video game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

Real life rules do not apply to a video game.

---

Oh? So we can toss the immersion logic out the window?



So what are the bases of said immersion breaking are you basing this off on? In this game has context for people wearing outlandish outfits.


Because immersion is another form of escape. And players use fashion to express themselves and to be immersive in said world. Some real life factors do play a part with how you go into a social element game. Even the best role players understand that.




So if not for immersion reason. What other reasons do you need said options?