[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

@chrono

Spoiler for Higurashi:

You kinda missed my point. I was making a reasoning about narrative necessities. If you are an author like Ryukishi and you want to write a story where the same event repeats itself many times but with different variations, you need to come up with an explanation.
In Higurashi it was a many-world interpretation. With that the "how it is possible that we see many incompatible version of the same story" is explained. However Ryukishi had also to introduce certain "rules" in order to limit the kind of universes that can possibly exist.

You seem to make the mistake to think that with a many-world interpretation you are still bound to law of physics by default. This is not necessarily true unless you are following a particular scientific interpretation and Higurashi isn't for many different reasons. A totally free many-world interpretation could even include universes where the law of physics are different, where magic exists and so on.

Now my point about Umineko is the fact that the idea that a Game Master can create a layer of fake scenes over a real scenario, is enough by itself to explain why you see many different variations of the same event. There is not a real narrative necessity to add another theory to explain what can be explained already with what you have.

This doesn't mean that the many-world interpretation "doesn't work" but simply that there is no real necessity for it. And you can say that Ryukishi still used the many-world interpretation of Higurashi for Umineko even if it wasn't strictly necessary. But personally I see this "non necessity" as a very good point to believe it wasn't used.

This "not necessary" thing is silly. I've already made an argument about EP4's 1998 which only makes sense if the Kakera Theory is true. If that argument turns out to be part of the answer, then the Kakera Theory is necessary to solve the game.

In effect, the only point you've made is that I can't prove that the Kakera Theory is relevant, which I never claimed I could do in the first place.

Anyways, just because books and creating stories are a theme doesn't detract from the Kakera Theory in the slightest, in my opinion. It's still up to the Game Master to write a story that fits the physical boundaries of the island. The false scenes can be interpreted as an imperfect observer, either because they didn't see the scene they thought they did, or because of secondhand information. Higurashi shows that kakera can include falsehoods if the perspective of the narrator is unreliable. Umineko takes that to the next level by making the identity of the narrator part of the puzzle.