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

[Theodric]

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.

[Iscah]

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.

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.

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.

[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...

[Nayout]

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

[SamRF]

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.

[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.


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.

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?

[Packetdancer]

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".)

[Krotoan]

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.

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..

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?

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.

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?

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".

[Wavaryen]

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.

[Wavaryen]

(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.