Garlean Third Eye Customization option

[Absimiliard]

You might want to check what Reapers actually do again. And that entry is still not specific examples. Still waiting

So you want specific examples despite the fact the Encyclopedia Eorzea is an officially recognized source of lore information? I should think an excerpt from one of Square-Enix's own products about another of their products would be more than sufficient.

[aveyond-dreams]

I highly support the addition of 3rd eye customization options so that we can play as Garleans. Ideally, I would like to see a sub race of Ilsabardian Hyurs added with Highlander-like physiques along with a 3rd eye. Let’s not gatekeep things, shall we? If they bent the lore for male Viera and male Miqote then the same can be done for Garleans. Otherwise, that may be indicative of an underlying bias.

[FireMage]

What does it matter if it offers "specific" examples or not? It's an in-game textual basis for it.

To be able to check accuracy. Also EE is not in-game

[Absimiliard]

To be able to check accuracy. Also EE is not in-game

And? Not being present in-game does not strip the EE of its status as an officially recognized source of information. By your logic the Ancient lore in NieR Re[in]carnation also doesn't count simply because the terms of the crossover required it be put in another game.

[Ameela]

As for it not making sense story wise, the main characters never acknowledge your character's race anyway, so I feel like it wouldn't really matter.

Yeah I think the funniest example of this is the Au Ra.
They make it a point to have Yugiri hide her face because she's not one of the five races and is afraid of being persecuted for it, yet your character can freely walk around as an Au Ra with no issues from the start and ARR areas have now been retroactively filled with Au Ra NPCs thanks to content added after the fact like Fashion Report. You'd think the moment she saw that she'd have no qualms about taking the hood off.

[Lauront]

To be able to check accuracy. Also EE is not in-game

It is reflective of scholarly work and viewpoints in-game, comprised in large part of sources directly lifted from in-game texts, and is put out by the developers on this basis. So I have no idea, really, what your objection to it in this instance is, other than "it could be wrong" - much of it is taken on the basis of right until shown to be wrong, and in this case, there is nothing that has contradicted it explicitly. It's immaterial whether you accept it or not in this case. All that matters is that it is sufficient for the developers to draw upon it should they want to.

[FireMage]

It is reflective of scholarly work and viewpoints in-game

And was also cited by its own writers as not gospel. So anything of value to reply with or....?

[Absimiliard]

And was also cited by its own writers as not gospel. So anything of value to reply with or....?

And yet you and others have used it as the basis for arguments on these forums for years. Pick a lane and stay in it.

[Lauront]

And was also cited by its own writers as not gospel. So anything of value to reply with or....?

I've replied with far more of value than you and your rather petty griping "well it could be wrong, so I won't accept it". As I said, it does not need to be "gospel" for them to draw upon this source later should they want to justify the presence of a Garlean MC. And that is all that matters.

All I see in your posts is exceedingly motivated "reasoning".

[FireMage]

And yet you

Citation required. You get one try