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

[Theodric]

Are you unaware you can already turn off chats in your chatbox?

Chat was also removed from ranked PvP.

[RognarB]

That would be a sensible customisation option and might even help with performance in some areas. There's already an option to disable player effects, I cant imagine a good reason why it wouldnt extend to player glamours.

[MOZZYSTAR]

So now that we have female characters tanking in string bikini's and now men in wedding dresses, it's time to adopt an option a lot of other games have: Hide Glamour. Naturally troglodyte are going to assume it's because of the men in dresses. It's actually because it's breaks the theme and feel of it being a final fantasy game.

Sooooo... Female avatars can wear wedding dresses in dungeons and feel immersive and fine, but men can't... ... ... And I assume that female in tuxes (although heaven forbid they wear bikinis when that sort of style has been all the rage in RPGs since... RPGs were a thing practically).

-Sniffs at the air- Crikey! I think I smell a bit of sexism here! Y'all need to get over it. Right now, things are "exploding" because it's new. Once the hype cools down, people will go back to their usual glam. When weddings first became a thing, every female avatar and her sister were wearing wedding gown glams (at least on my old server). Now that guys get some more options, they're exploring them! Let them explore. People like you are exactly why they don't don't cater to the "female" audience because - regardless of gender/sex - they're too stuck on the stereotypes of what makes a man and what makes a woman. "Oh my god, that male character is showing his hips! CHANGE IT!" <-- What happened to male protagonist on one of the FF mobile games (his outfit did get changed).

Though I will say if you hate it so much, move servers... because I have not really seen an explosion of anything on my server (not saying I want someone like you on my server). Sure, everyone was wearing 2B's dress when it first came out. Within a week, almost no one wears it. It's like BLU explosion with BLUs everywhere! Crap happens, wait it out, get over it. Here's hoping they don't implement such a stupid system just because some people are soooo offended by men in dresses. News flash: 99% of healer gear are dresses. My regular bard attire (not a glam) is a freaking dress. Men had speedos/thong-like things even before 2B's tights came out, just as an FYI (and they're skimpier, too!). They're just uglier.

Immersion is not an excuse to be a bigot, considering we have so much crap that breaks immersion (e.g. Regalia, Yokai watch stuff, and more). Don't be a bigot.

[Vonleo]

Its a freaking OPTION if you want to see all these guys in bikinis or speedos have at it but others dont want to see it so whats the problem? you get what you want and they get what they want no harm no foul jesus christ. Also there really shouldnt be people for or against it just have it in game because again it does not effect anyone because people wont know if its on or off.

[RognarB]

Immersion is not an excuse to be a bigot, considering we have so much crap that breaks immersion (e.g. Regalia, Yokai watch stuff, and more). Don't be a bigot.

There are people out there that take offense with looking at some glams, lets take men in dresses for example. Having the (official) option to quietly turn off glamour would be a tool to avoid said people getting upset and lashing out at the offending man in a dress, reducing the amount of bigotry thats being expressed. And since its clientside, everyone wins. I doubt that upon turning off a glam there's going to be a system message stating "Momeen Dapoulet has turned off player glamour because they are disgusted by how you look."
Unless the man in a dress's identity entirely revolves around how hard they can make some people uncomfortable (which is pretty shallow, tbh), everybody walks away satisfied with themselves and there's less bigotry in this low world.

[SamRF]

Even though I've advocated to have this option, I really don't care about it too much, just something that would be nice to have as a feature. What baffles me is how freaking outraged and angry you people get over the mere suggestion of this. I can respect if you don't want this to be a voluntary option for whatever reason, you can have your opinion, but I don't understand why you get so offended and start name calling due to disagreement on something that is imo so trivial.

[Iscah]

And yet the person standing there playing the music for others to hear is muted out by an option. You are altering it by not playing the music, so what is going on, on your screen is different from the one that has bard performance not on mute. And yes I clicked it on to be please me because I am often annoyed by the music.

You're assuming the bard expects every person to stop and listen to them or they're being disrespected - which is highly unlikely to be the case.

But then the same argument keeps getting thrown here by those in favour of the filter: "if you're against it, it must be because you demand that everyone look at and appreciate your glamour! What other reason could you possibly have for refusing to let us alter it?"

Meanwhile at least three different people (myself included) have explained that they would personally dislike it not because their fancy outfit is covered up, but that it's likely to leave them in more revealing outfits than they had chosen to wear.

It's not even that we would wear the things that people object to and want to block out - but we would be affected just the same.

[Iscah]

There are people out there that take offense with looking at some glams, lets take men in dresses for example. Having the (official) option to quietly turn off glamour would be a tool to avoid said people getting upset and lashing out at the offending man in a dress, reducing the amount of bigotry thats being expressed. And since its clientside, everyone wins.

"We'll prevent bigotry by letting everyone be a bigot privately so they don't have to stop themselves from insulting other people! Isn't that nice?"

I'm sorry, I just... what.

[Tranquilmelody7]

"We'll prevent bigotry by letting everyone be a bigot privately so they don't have to stop themselves from insulting other people! Isn't that nice?"

I'm sorry, I just... what.

I legit loled.
What they just described isn't progressive behavior in the slightest.

[SamRF]

Why stop at glamours? Maybe we could have an option to turn all Lalafells to either Viera or Hrothgar, client side.

What would be the problem with that? It's a client side voluntary option. I think that's the biggest argument from the people who either don't mind or do want this option. Hypothetically speaking you could completely mod the game and make every player look like penguins. What does it matter when someone does that? Would you ever notice? It's their client, it's their files on their computer. Only anti-choice argument I can understand is that implementation of this option would perhaps require resources that are best spent elsewhere.