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

[SturmChurro]

And people expect a moderator or dev to trudge through this sewage when this very idea would never make it to any serious person's desk.

It offers absolutely nothing to the game in terms of QoL enhancements, ease of access to the game. It doesn't add fun activities to the game nor increase the longevity of it.

This thread would be at best locked, the other alternative would be deletion as that's what the moderators here like to do. Otherwise this will have to be moderated like the male viera thread, but at least the male viera thread offered some sort of actual discussion, for a time.

[Wavaryen]

I mean sure, you can say it is just my two cents..and me saying you not wanting to see someones glam is good enough for you, but you have way too many factors saying that it is not needed. Let alone, it goes against what fashion is, and what a MMO is.


At a certain point you must ask yourself is the mmo element the real problem here?

[Packetdancer]

Eh, I guess my point is that people seem to think the way they do because it's an electronic medium. It's almost like a distraction from the actual issue here. As soon as it involves the internet or anything with a screen, people begin to draw non-existent parallels.

If somebody took a screenshot of the game and mailed it to me on paper via snail mail, should I not be allowed to draw on it with a marker?

Sure, there's nothing legally stopping you.

But I'd argue that if you took—to go back to the TV show analogy—a picture from the TV show and edited it to make one of the actresses look like she was nude, then posted it somewhere, people might feel you were misrepresenting that actress. And even if that actress wasn't out actively looking at that forum or seeking pictures of herself, if someone else saw it and pointed her at it, or saw it and later met her at a convention and said "Oh, yeah, I know you! You're the one with that nude picture shared on this forum I'm on!" then I'm guessing the actress wouldn't be super jazzed about learning what had been done to her image.

Similarly, I admit that I'd be a bit put-out if someone disabled glam and screenshotted what I was wearing without glam at some point leveling during an expansion when I have mismatched gear involving leg armor that appears to be underwear. (Which describes a downright alarming amount of the female healer gear, for the record. Again, #GiveUsMorePants2k20 and thank you.) If someone went, "Oh, yeah, I saw a screenshot from that raid you were in! You were the one in underwear!" then I'd probably be a bit put-out upon hearing it. Whether or not I'd gone looking for those images myself.

At any rate, I still personally am not super keen on this option for a variety of reasons. But I think if anyone was going to do this, the best way to implement it would be:

1. Just make a switch that can disable the glamour system globally. (Yes, including for the player enabling this option.) That would be the simplest solution requiring the least amount of dev resources. The only exception would be...
2. Still allow glamour to apply to weapons, because otherwise people will feel like there's no point to grinding relic weapons, or showing off their fancy TEA weapon. And also, it's not like your DRG lance is going to be wearing a thong or whatever for anyone to object to. (...I pray your DRG lance isn't wearing a thong.)
3. Put everyone instead in the AF1 gear for their job, visually. This way, everyone is in a matched set that Square has deemed lore-appropriate for that job.
4. Absolutely not change the character model itself, because replacing a dark-skinned character with the default (light-skinned) one gives me All The Cringe. And I guarantee you the moment someone noticed it could be used that way, that would be blood in the water among the gaming press; the headlines—"SquareEnix allows You To Make Their Game a White Supremacist's Dream" or whatever—would not be pretty, regardless of the intent behind the feature.

I feel like that's the least objectionable implementation that would take the least dev effort, anyway. I still don't think it's a worthwhile or valuable feature in any way, but...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chezen]

So going outside shirtless when it's 100 degrees is rebellious? Or going to a pool in just your trunks or bikini is rebellious?

Please refrain from false equivalents and be truthful, as I will not beat around the bush. Players are not generally wearing trunks and bikinis, and when they do, they are not on Costa Del Sol.

This thread would be at best locked, the other alternative would be deletion as that's what the moderators here like to do. Otherwise this will have to be moderated like the male viera thread, but at least the male viera thread offered some sort of actual discussion, for a time.

Probably. SE is going to do what SE is going to do, and the only real right of any player is to play or not to play.

[Cithaerias_pyropina]

Snip

Then don't assume everyone wearing skimpy glamour is automatically rebellious.

[DumdogsWorld]

Sure, there's nothing legally stopping you.

That's pretty much all I wanted anybody to say.

Not "I agree, Square Enix should take developer time to make this" or "this is something that could not be used for idiot purposes whatsoever." Square Enix doesn't need to listen to every little request ever made of them. No game company does. Plus, they have to look at the larger consequences on a grander scale.

As radical as I might sound to some people, I accepted this not being a feature the moment I entered this thread.

[Chezen]

Then don't assume everyone wearing skimpy glamour is automatically rebellious.

Would you care to put forth another reason? You might not think so, but I am actually all ears.

[XenoSamurai]

Would you care to put forth another reason? You might not think so, but I am actually all ears.

Maybe people like to wear skimpy outfits or dresses because they like it and not because they are rebellious?

[Packetdancer]

That's pretty much all I wanted anybody to say.

I could argue that 'legal' and 'moral' are not direct synonyms by any stretch, but once you get into defining 'moral' I feel like that's taking things well beyond the scope anyone wants this conversation to range (and possibly into university philosophy coursework, or else a YouTube clip of Chidi Anagonye from The Good Place). And I've probably already contributed enough words to what's become sort of a trash fire of a thread.

(Looks back at length of previous posts, considers.)

Correction: I've probably already contributed a lot more than enough words to what's become sort of a trash fire of a thread.

[Chezen]

Maybe people like to wear skimpy outfits or dresses because they like it and not because they are rebellious?

Again, I have to ask, why? Obviously, you wouldn't know this, but I'm actually very much open to artistic expression. I'm not open to it at the cost of social cohesion, though. A girl who thinks skimpy clothing is "pretty," is a girl who probably doesn't have a father figure in her life. Getting a little out there with the topic, but, that's why it is a controversial and complicated topic. One I should probably be refraining from discussing, but as a mom of teens, it very much concerns me. Believe it or not, I came on here to look at crafting threads.