Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall
You seem to be assuming the pieces actually behave according to Beatrice's will, and that she's not just selectively displaying things in certain ways and making up others.
|
I am "assuming" this because that's what Bern and Lambda said. Bernkastel definitely said that she was guiding piece Battler actions when he solved the riddle, and Lambda used Battler to save Beatrice inside Kinzo's room. Now I don't really think the ability to move a piece is limited to the human side.
To state that a gamemaster cannot actually move the pieces you need to state that Bern and Lambda lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kite11
And the idea of Beato, Ronove, and Virgilia not caring about the deaths of the game pieces fits the "you don't cry when you lose a piece in chess" mind set. There have been a few instances where some kindness has been shown such as the 1st twilight of game 3 and with Gaap giving the dead their dignity in game 5. Beato... the "she's only acting" works here... And she does tone down a little...
|
Quote:
There are 2 ways to explain the characters' indifference. One is that they are falsehoods themselves. It's never been stated in red that they exist in the meta world.
The other is that, assuming a "final world" will be chosen in the end, the result of each game leading up to that doesn't matter (possibly). If you kill someone and then go back in time and stop yourself killing them, is there a crime committed in the final timeline? It seems as though this world has been repeating dozens if not hundreds of times. If so, their actions are perfectly reasonable.
|
I can't see Battler being able to accept these explanations, they do sound rational, but Battler doesn't seem the kind of person to accept the cruel side of reality.
There's only one thing that matters. Are they real human beings? Do they suffer? Are they dying for real?
If the answer to all these questions is "yes" then there's no excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig
The game master isn't the narrator. The "narrator" is the viewpoint that we see the world through. I use "narrator" to describe the viewpoint we see the story by, not the person who created the story (who would be the author). However, the game master is able to show things to the narrator through the eyes and/or statements of certain people.
|
the problem is in a novel the author has also total control over the narrator, in other words the narrator is just an extension of the author. This is a scenario where the author can make the narrator see whatever he wants and can manipulate the narrator at will, in other words the distinction it's kinda pointless. The narrator tells you whatever the author wants.
Well at least that's what happens with real authors and they narrators.
If you think Umineko differs from this then the analogy doesn't work anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can
Yes, but you're missing my point. Bern treated those scenarios as kakeras. They were in the sea of kakera.
|
If you watch a movie in kakera A and a different movie in kakera B, Bern can travel both kakera and see both movies. However the movie themselves aren't the kakera, they are just inside them. In other words it is possible that what Bern showed to Battler were the games the Battlers from other kakera played.