[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by goldendust

I just reread all of Umineko again.

Just wondering did Erika/Bernkastel work out that Shannon and Kannon were the same person in the 5th game when all of the time people were gathered in the parlor? The red truth said that everyone on the island in the parlor rather then listing the names.

Oh lord, this again.
BASICALLY, we have no consensus on the EP5 parlor scenes (there are two to consider - the one where Lambda's reds about numbers of people was made, and the later scene when Erika announced Natsuhi-culprit). No consensus, AT ALL. Everyone here seems to have settled on an answer that satisfies them.

I personally, very, VERY much doubt that Erika/Bern worked out Shkanon, for several reasons. However, you can also competently argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by goldendust

Also in the 6th game, Erika made a comment after Batter jokingly asked if would be disappointing if nobody died, then Erika said "it would be troublesome if our numbers have not thinned out by tomorrow morning" to which Shannon had a reacton. Was Eriak prehaps addressing Shannon instead of Battler with that comment.

Oh, could you point out where that exchange took place? I'd consider looking at it again ... I doubt she was addressing Shannon, since Erika pays ASTOUNDINGLY little attention to her in EP5, EP6, and EP8. Like I said before, I don't think Erika worked out Shkanon at all at that time.

Originally Posted by goldendust

Also in 6th game, Erika has no interest in finding the culprit but rather wanting to trap Battler in a logic error.

This is true. However, very technically speaking, Erika's goal changed the instant Beatrice came to the wedding, because at that point the Logic Error was solved.

If Beatrice won, than it meant she had a human-culprit solution that fit all the reds, and successfully hid it with magic.
If Erika won, it would mean she had ... found a human-culprit solution that fit all the reds, and successfully destroyed Beato's magic hiding it.

[Valkama]

Originally Posted by goldendust

I just reread all of Umineko again.

Just wondering did Erika/Bernkastel work out that Shannon and Kannon were the same person in the 5th game when all of the time people were gathered in the parlor? The red truth said that everyone on the island in the parlor rather then listing the names.

I doubt it. Bernkastel was seeing the game through Battler which was a false perspective and never really communicated with Erika and just sorta let Erika do her own thing. Erika ignored most of the family and just focused entirely on Natsuhi. If she did start paying attention to Shannon and Kanon in the 6th game she likely wouldn't notice one of them not being in the last game as she really didn't pay attention to them in the first place.

Bernkastel probably figured it out some time in the 6th game though although she didn't inform Erika cause that would probably have been boring to her. If not during then soon after as she obviously knew the solution in the 7th game.

[chronotrig]

Let's look at it this way, though. Most people are fairly sure that Yasu-culprit was Ryuukishi's intended answer. But the majority of people also seem less than satisfied with all the motives for Yasu that have been raised so far.

I've got a question then: why are we so sure that Yasu is the killer on the gameboard? I don't say that to imply that there's no good reason, but because I want to be specific. Is there anything that happens on the board that proves Yasu killed those people, or is our certainty only based on things that happened off the gameboard, in the Core Arcs, or in the Ryuukishi interviews?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Let's look at it this way, though. Most people are fairly sure that Yasu-culprit was Ryuukishi's intended answer. But the majority of people also seem less than satisfied with all the motives for Yasu that have been raised so far.

I've got a question then: why are we so sure that Yasu is the killer on the gameboard? I don't say that to imply that there's no good reason, but because I want to be specific. Is there anything that happens on the board that proves Yasu killed those people, or is our certainty only based on things that happened off the gameboard, in the Core Arcs, or in the Ryuukishi interviews?

My presumption is that people take Will's answers in Requiem at face value, and those answers happen to heavily endorse that culprit theory. Of course, there are a fair number of problems with taking Will entirely at face value:

• Will is giving Clair the answers that satisfy her. Are we absolutely certain the answers that satisfy her are the same as the answers that Ryukishi intended? We know Will would be willing to invent a solution that is "wrong" yet "right" for the person he's talking to. Not out of deception, but compassion and empathy. Why couldn't Will be concocting a "Shkanon dun all of 'em, here's how" solution just to satisfy some desire on the part of the author to be genuinely understood... as a scapegoat?
• Will spends an awful long time early in ep7 harping on the importance of motive. What motive does he give in his "solutions?" ...None, really. Why not? Will is smart enough to come up with a motive, surely. He simply never actually gets asked for the motive. At no point does it appear that anybody wants him to provide a motive. And he's nice enough not to do so when asked... but surely he must be aware that his explanations ring somewhat hollow without a clear and satisfactory motive for the board killer? We don't even get a good motive out of the flashback sequences. The story goes out of its way to tell us how important motive is then doesn't give us one.
• Will's solutions are not the only possible ones for the episodes. Most notably, there are a couple additional ways to maybe solve Banquet, and God only knows what happened in Alliance (which is largely ignored in Will's solutions anyway). As some of the recent Kyrie mental gymnastics has shown, it's not unimaginable to come up with an excuse that would get somebody else in as a potential culprit for Legend and Turn. I'd think a "true solution" would automatically make all other possibilities seem trite, but at least in the case of Banquet there are compelling reasons to argue that the killer is different from the first two games.

Taking all of this into account, it's understandable why people might assume it's what Ryukishi intended and I suppose it's possible to use these arguments to suggest otherwise. Having said that, I don't know what the point would be of lying/misleading in interviews except to be a huge dick, so I'm inclined to think those were the solutions he intended... at the time of ep7, at least.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Taking all of this into account, it's understandable why people might assume it's what Ryukishi intended and I suppose it's possible to use these arguments to suggest otherwise. Having said that, I don't know what the point would be of lying/misleading in interviews except to be a huge dick, so I'm inclined to think those were the solutions he intended... at the time of ep7, at least.

Well, I think I can understand why he'd mislead in the interviews. His big thing with Umineko was to make a game that was spoiler-proof, and then to force people to solve it on their own instead of revealing an answer. Nearly everything any of us sees these days gets spoiled somehow, so I don't mind him taking this position.

If Ryuukishi thinks his story satisfies the spirit of the Knox rules, no additional hints should be needed now that it's over. So, if we readers are using an interview to decide what we think "the answer" is, then we've either given up on solving his game and are looking for an easy way out, or we've decided that he failed to give us enough clues in the game. So, it makes sense for him to try and say things that will only make sense to someone who already knows the answer.


Outright lying is another matter though, since that doesn't gain him anything. Unless it was unintentional or trying to be too clever, I think anything he says in an interview is meant to be "true". Whether it's part of the final answer or not is a different matter though (Our Confessions implies that there might be two complete answers for the gameboard).


Question's still open though. If he's hinting to "Yasu=killer" in the interviews and through Will, exactly what sort of evidence did he show for it on the gameboard itself, in the first 4 games?

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Question's still open though. If he's hinting to "Yasu=killer" in the interviews and through Will, exactly what sort of evidence did he show for it on the gameboard itself, in the first 4 games?

I can only speak for myself, obviously.

But as of the end of Alliance, I was fairly convinced the culprit was Shannon, with Kanon as some kind of wonky accomplice / manipulated fall guy. Had very briefly considered Shkanon in EP2, quickly dismissed it, and only noticed the "never in the same room" after reading it online after reading Alliance.

The clues were just strongest in Shannon's direction, even if the motive seems kind of incomprehensible, and were fairly weak in everyone else's direction. The only reason I really had to include Kanon at all is because of Lambda's reds at the very very end of EP4. I mean, Turn was actually extremely easy, and Battler only really failed to solve it because he INSISTED on 19th Person X at the time.

And about Will conveniently not really tackling Yasu's motives (I thought he gave some kind of hand-wave like "this should be enough to understand it. Yeah, I get it.") well, how ... very convenient for Ryukishi that the character Ryukishi wrote to be a competent detective doesn't mention any discrepancies in the motive of the culprit Ryukishi wrote. Love, or whatever.™ Or, I guess that sounds kinda dismissive - it's similar to how Kanon was just so glossed over in EP7, though.

[Drifloon]

@chronotrig: Doesn't the very fact that several people basically figured it out after EP4 prove that it was adequately hinted?

I mean, Shkanon and pony theory were both being discussed soon after EP4 was released. Put those together and you pretty much have the answer. If there are hints that Shannon and Kanon are the same person, and hints that Shannon is the culprit, it's certainly possible to come to the conclusion of Shkanontrice by EP4. And I don't think most people would dispute that plenty of hints to both of those things do exist in the question arcs.

[Valkama]

I hate to admit it but I got into the series by watching the anime. At the end of the anime I was fairly certain Kanon was the culprit. When I went back through the novels I found some things that both supported Kanon but also rejected Kanon and after EP2 I did read some ideas from people who were discussing Shkanon after finishing EP2 and looked at the story that way and everything did seem to fit together nicely. Although after I read EP5 I just ignored that theory entirely and EP6-7 got me to think that it was Shannon and George with Kanon as somewhat of an accomplice.

However if Shkanon is false then looking back I could only accept Kanon as the culprit. If EP1 is done by anyone other than Kanon then it's a pretty cheap move on Ryukishi's part as that makes it so 6 people have an equal opportunity to be the culprit. Shannon would still be the best one of those 6 though as her body was never really seen.

One thing that people might consider to be a hint though. In EP3 when Battler starts theorizing about one of the servants is the culprit Beatrice acts really childish with her retaliations and Battler even mentions she looks like she's getting really worried. Later Shannon and Kanon both seem to revive with Beatrice's revival which is a bit symbolic. I also found Battler considering alternate personalities to be another hint. Or course these are all really meta hints. I've been meaning to look back through EP1 and EP2 looking for Shkanon hints I just haven't had the time.

In Short if it's not Shkanon then it has to be either Shannon or Kanon.

[goldendust]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Oh, could you point out where that exchange took place? I'd consider looking at it again ... I doubt she was addressing Shannon, since Erika pays ASTOUNDINGLY little attention to her in EP5, EP6, and EP8. Like I said before, I don't think Erika worked out Shkanon at all at that time.

It was after the dinner scene with the cheese puzzle. Erika was talking with Battler that it would bad if the numbers did not thin out by the night. Shannon had a flustered reaction.

I figured that Ryukishi did not have Erika focus too much on the two as it would give away too much rather that Erika goes after a false culprit or rather after Battler. Besides it seemed more like Bernkastel just wanted to screw around rather than try to find out the truth, so I see little reason why Erika could act against Bernkastel's wishes.

Originally Posted by Valkama

I doubt it. Bernkastel was seeing the game through Battler which was a false perspective and never really communicated with Erika and just sorta let Erika do her own thing. Erika ignored most of the family and just focused entirely on Natsuhi. If she did start paying attention to Shannon and Kanon in the 6th game she likely wouldn't notice one of them not being in the last game as she really didn't pay attention to them in the first place.

Bernkastel probably figured it out some time in the 6th game though although she didn't inform Erika cause that would probably have been boring to her. If not during then soon after as she obviously knew the solution in the 7th game.

Didn't Bernkastel witness the calls between Natsuhi and the man from 19 years ago? I do not think she just seeing the game just through Battler.

I figured that Erika focused on everyone in the parlor hence why she wanted the red to confirm that everyone is there with the world "everyone".

Also Erika only focused on Natsuhi later on when she wanted to corner her.

Originally Posted by Kealym

And about Will conveniently not really tackling Yasu's motives (I thought he gave some kind of hand-wave like "this should be enough to understand it. Yeah, I get it.") well, how ... very convenient for Ryukishi that the character Ryukishi wrote to be a competent detective doesn't mention any discrepancies in the motive of the culprit Ryukishi wrote. Love, or whatever.™ Or, I guess that sounds kinda dismissive - it's similar to how Kanon was just so glossed over in EP7, though.

I could be misunderstanding things but if you take the scene where Beatrice regains her memory and has that memory about "mother" that it explains the motive/birth of Beatrice better than all of the EP7. Somehow EP7 did not really help to explain the motive that much. I feel that the important parts like Yasu finding out about being "furniture" was too glossed over. I figure that would be a more important component of her motivation than Battler's forgetfulness.

In first four games, I figured that the motive of carrying out the epitaph to gain the prizes of the golden land was the motive that was consistently hinted at. Maria who was the closest to Beatrice also shared the belief that Beatrice was going to bring them all to the Golden Land. I do not think another motive has been hinted at that much. Besides in EP3 it is implied that Beatrice could so cruelly carry out the murders since they would revive anyway.

Sure it requires Shannon/Kannon to be incredibly delusional but at least I could understand why they could put on such a cruel murder plot against the people they love.

[qno2]

Originally Posted by Valkama

One thing that people might consider to be a hint though. In EP3 when Battler starts theorizing about one of the servants is the culprit Beatrice acts really childish with her retaliations and Battler even mentions she looks like she's getting really worried.

Another little hint in regards to both the "personalities =/= human" issue and the "cheap trick" of EP6: the whole deal about Fukuin-children receiving a different name. It's not like Sayo or Yoshida being their "true" names ever really mattered. If anything you could've always seen it as "Kanon the servant is dead, Yoshida is still running wild".

So either that whole mechanism was absolutely pointless (in terms of dealing with red; of course it plays into the topic of "hidden/second personalities") or it served as a hint towards semantic cheating. Something that none of the other characters have, maybe aside Battler (from the perspective of EP4, since his identity had become somewhat questionable back then).

Originally Posted by Valkama

Later Shannon and Kanon both seem to revive with Beatrice's revival which is a bit symbolic.

I've been wondering a bit about EP3. Alright, so both Kanon and Shannon are declared dead pretty early on and the "resurrection" is portrayed as a pretty difficult process, so instantly switching between the two seems out of question - unlike EP6, where both (or at least Shannon) were still alive, depending on where you place the time of Kanon's "death" (duel or inside the closet) - so: who was Yasu in that timeframe during EP3?

Basically, does Yasu turn into Beatrice whenever both of her "human" personas die (the famous "18<X<19") or is she literally "empty"? Doesn't really matter in terms of red, but it interests me concerning her portrayed personality. Personally I'd go for the former but maybe I've overlooked something.

Originally Posted by Valkama

I've been meaning to look back through EP1 and EP2 looking for Shkanon hints I just haven't had the time.

A few examples that come to my mind, I might get details wrong however. We could argue whether c) and e) are even hints or just coincidence, so I'll use a smaller font for them.

a) EP1, Kanon's first appearance, at the end of his encounter with Battler. Something along the lines of 'he says something he couldn't hear himself' or 'wasn't directed at himself'. Of course this hint for Shkanon only makes sense once you consciously look for Shkanon, otherwise it's Kanon just having very faint feelings/emotions/thoughts.

b) EP2 prologue, the obvious choice.

c) the golden butterflies back in EP1 appeared after Shannon received the ring and at Kanon's 'rebellion' (and Shkanontrice's big entrance at the end of course); there are none for the other killings. Does it mean anything? Beats me, but Ryukishi could've easily shown them for the other killings as well, but then it wouldn't be possible for the reader to get the idea that maybe, possibly, Shkanon needs to be present for the 'magic' to happen; of course, towards the end of the game all bets are off anyway. My memory might lie to me though and the butterflies appeared even without Kanons and Shannons presence in EP1.

d) Shkanon having knowledge of previous Gameboards in both EP3 and EP4, and that they generally hold a special role (even in EP2, nobody interacts as much with Beatrice).

e) heck, once you start looking for them, even really small things come up... it's odd how only Shannon and Kanon are just quietly standing in the corner during Kinzo's Last Supper up until the end (and then there's Genji being himself... with the slight difference that he 'dies' in the scene anyway), especially considering Kanons rebellious nature... as if they were "puppets".


Overall I find it hard to differentiate when something becomes a hint or just fits post-hoc into our Shkanon solution. Aside the pony-promise there were few strong leads.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Drifloon

@chronotrig: Doesn't the very fact that several people basically figured it out after EP4 prove that it was adequately hinted?

I mean, Shkanon and pony theory were both being discussed soon after EP4 was released. Put those together and you pretty much have the answer. If there are hints that Shannon and Kanon are the same person, and hints that Shannon is the culprit, it's certainly possible to come to the conclusion of Shkanontrice by EP4. And I don't think most people would dispute that plenty of hints to both of those things do exist in the question arcs.

I won't disagree with you there. I argued for that point a lot between the EP6 and EP7 releases. But I'm trying to get into specifics.

The Shkanon theory explains several things, but since it started 3 years before and was supported by many servants and probably Kinzo, it must have some cause unrelated to the crime. By itself, it can't be used as direct evidence that Yasu killed anyone.

Parts of the pony theory explain Shannon's feelings for Battler and are almost undeniable in retrospect. But at this moment, we're having trouble truly understanding why those feelings would lead her to suddenly ritualistically murder most of the people she knows and loves. Even at its best, it does little to prove that Yasu killed anyone, but only raises the possibility.


What we need is more than a hint, but some actual events on the gameboard linking Yasu to the murders. As Battler said in EP2, just being suspicious doesn't make you guilty.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by goldendust

Besides in EP3 it is implied that Beatrice could so cruelly carry out the murders since they would revive anyway.

This has more to do with Beatrice knowing that everything she's doing isn't really happening. Its a story after all. You kinda see this backed up in EP8 when Beatrice asks Battler if he's ok with her having murdered his family so many times and Battler not carrying about it.

Didn't Bernkastel witness the calls between Natsuhi and the man from 19 years ago? I do not think she just seeing the game just through Battler.

It wouldnt be much of a game if Bern could see every behind the scene move that Lamda did.

And again, if they had known about Shkanon in EP5, it would trivialized the wedding duel scene. All Erika would need to say is "Oh you just did that Shkanon thing in the closet didnt you? You are full of shit btw!" And Beatrice would have been blown to bits.

The topic was beaten to death before and yeah everyone has their own pet theory. In my opinion, Kanon exists in that game as a separate individual. You could probably say that he exists in all the other episodes up till ep6 as well, do to the quantum nature of the catbox. It wasnt till the end of EP6, where Battler and Beatrice force Kanon to be part of someone else.

You can explain the whole "number of people" in the island using ranges instead of a single number. The only problem with the interpretation is that its kinda unfair to force the number in EP5 to be 17 and then retroactively force every previous game to be 16. But thats probably part of the catbox's nature. It would kinda explain Erika's last reds as well.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

What we need is more than a hint, but some actual events on the gameboard linking Yasu to the murders. As Battler said in EP2, just being suspicious doesn't make you guilty.

Again, we run into the problem of nobody having a motive to kill everybody. There are people that we simply would have to think each person on the island wouldn't kill... unless they're simply totally insane, in which case reasoning is useless because they don't actually possess a rational motive.

For Beatrice, I look to Maria. Now, in Legend and Turn we never see Beatrice harm Maria (there's still the issue of the explosion, but let's overlook that for now). In Legend it does appear that she killed her mother, but let's assume she believed that to be justifiable due to the way Rosa was treating her (which we can reasonably assume she did know about from info in ep4). In Alliance, Maria seems to be given a mercy killing of sorts. Maybe, maybe if you stretch for the "insane, but in a way that makes sense to them" argument, you can say that with everyone else dead it was necessary to poison Maria to go to the Golden Land (why, exactly, I don't know, but let's pretend).

The problem the Shkanontrice culprit theory runs up against, assuming that like Will you seem to be trying to blame everything on a single culprit, is Banquet. Maria is killed early and in a brutal, primal manner, via strangulation. Why in the world is that happening? It doesn't fit at all. What would suddenly cause Beatrice to not only lay hands on Maria that early in her murder spree, but to kill her so brutally?

And similar arguments can be made for nearly every character. Might Kyrie kill someone? Possibly. Would Kyrie kill everyone? No. What about Eva, or Rosa, or George? Again, maybe someone, but certainly not everyone. It runs up against the notion that there were multiple killers... but once you start going down that rabbit hole, things get way too difficult to prove. Which kill was which? Was there a fake murder game going on? Who was the real killer? How'd they get away with it? We can't just accept an Erika-style "oh yeah nobody moved while I was subduing them and cutting their heads off" argument.

[Drifloon]

The problem the Shkanontrice culprit theory runs up against, assuming that like Will you seem to be trying to blame everything on a single culprit, is Banquet.

Do we really have to assume a single murderer for everything, though? I've personally never seen why people are so reluctant to just accept Eva as the culprit for everything but the first twilight, George and Nanjo in EP3. Even Will mentions "the obvious culprit" for the seventh and eighth twilights. I guess people just think it's TOO obvious, but I don't really see the problem, especially since Ryukishi said he intentionally lowered the difficulty for EP3 after the reaction to EP2.

[Valkama]

Well doing a bit of logical thinking about the gameboards.

I'm going to try to ignore the red as much as possible and just look at physically possible. I'm also going to assume there was one murderer.

Episode 1:

The chain room could only have been done by 7 people. Rudolf, Kyrie, Krauss, Shannon, Gohda, Rosa and Kanon considering everyone else has an alibi for it.

Those 7 people are actually constant themes of being the only 7 that could really do any of the murders. Well actually using the KNM's explanation Battler didn't examine Gohda, Rosa or Shannon so let's say it's only possible for 4 people.

Episode 2:

Natsuhi's room could only have been done by 5 people. Shannon, George, Gohda, Rosa and Kanon. George couldn't have caused the murders in the first game so let's remove him. So now we are left with 4 people to be the culprits still.

Episode 3:

Dr. Nanjo's murder. All of the dead were witnessed by battler except for the 5 servants and Kinzo so logically speaking any one of them could have committed the crime.

That leaves 3 people left: Gohda, Kanon and Shannon.

Episode 4:

Gohda and Kumasawa's murder. From the position they were found in it would be extremely awkward for them to commit suicide.

Now we are left with 2 people: Shannon and Kanon

Then if you put red into play you suddenly wind up with only Kanon can do some things and only Shannon can do others and you are left with no one. Unless of course they happen to be the same person. I am of course ignoring all statements in red that say people are dead and I am only considering someone to be dead when Battler see's that they are dead.

Also I notice something Will says after Claire states that's what it means to abandon ones self to fate.

"......And that's the roulette you were talking about."

I'm surprised I missed that before. But basically the solution Will found is confirmed to involve Kanon as the culprit of the first game.

[goldendust]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

This has more to do with Beatrice knowing that everything she's doing isn't really happening. Its a story after all. You kinda see this backed up in EP8 when Beatrice asks Battler if he's ok with her having murdered his family so many times and Battler not carrying about it.

I mean in the context of the story and not the meta world. If the culprit truly believed that by carrying out the epitaph that everyone will revive in the golden land that it could explain why the murders were over the top cruel.

It wouldn't be much of a game if Bern could see every behind the scene move that Lamda did.

Bern even asked Lamda if what they were seeing really happened. Besides I always had the impression that the players witness everything that happens in the game even flashbacks like when Rosa "killed" Beatrice.

And again, if they had known about Shkanon in EP5, it would trivialized the wedding duel scene. All Erika would need to say is "Oh you just did that Shkanon thing in the closet didnt you? You are full of shit btw!" And Beatrice would have been blown to bits.

The topic was beaten to death before and yeah everyone has their own pet theory. In my opinion, Kanon exists in that game as a separate individual. You could probably say that he exists in all the other episodes up till ep6 as well, do to the quantum nature of the catbox. It wasnt till the end of EP6, where Battler and Beatrice force Kanon to be part of someone else.

You can explain the whole "number of people" in the island using ranges instead of a single number. The only problem with the interpretation is that its kinda unfair to force the number in EP5 to be 17 and then retroactively force every previous game to be 16. But thats probably part of the catbox's nature. It would kinda explain Erika's last reds as well.

Do you also think that the scene where Erika and Beatirce were arguing about how Kinzo could have escaped the room in EP5 is trivialized considering that it is an established fact that Kinzo is dead..

If topic was beaten to death before, I will digress but I thought it was an interesting observation and wondered if anyone else noticed.

[Drifloon]

I'm surprised I missed that before. But basically the solution Will found is confirmed to involve Kanon as the culprit of the first game.

...I think you're misunderstanding this line. He's referring to how Clair keeps mentioning the "roulette of fate", not the 'zero on your roulette' thing from EP1.

[Valkama]

Originally Posted by Drifloon

...I think you're misunderstanding this line. He's referring to how Clair keeps mentioning the "roulette of fate", not the 'zero on your roulette' thing from EP1.

Oh whoops... I should probably read things in context :/

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by goldendust

Bern even asked Lamda if what they were seeing really happened. Besides I always had the impression that the players witness everything that happens in the game even flashbacks like when Rosa "killed" Beatrice.

Yeah, when I said behind the scenes I meant who actually made the call. The player sees all the scenes presented in the story just like we do, just not the "guts" of it as Beatrice would say.

Do you also think that the scene where Erika and Beatirce were arguing about how Kinzo could have escaped the room in EP5 is trivialized considering that it is an established fact that Kinzo is dead.

It would have been trivialized, but RK07 introduced Knox's Decalogue to un-trivialize it.

Its no really comparable either way. Had Bern/Erika known about Shkanon then they have would have probably acted differently. Would have taken precautions so that it was a non issue if it came up. I think Bern/Erika did figure it out eventually, as evidenced by Erika trying to force the number of people in the island to be 18 with her. It was just too late and Battler/Beatrice had wiped Kanon from existence by then.

[DaBackpack]

I agree that the motive for any character killing everybody is weak and that there is no evidence on the gameboards that Yasu actually committed the crimes. If there was as much as a single hint towards who did them, we would solve it too easily.

But that's not to say there aren't hints about WHO Beatrice is. I think that this was never meant to be solvable entirely by looking at the gameboards or the Red Truth. The hints towards Shkannontrice are very, very plentiful in the EP1-4 meta scenes. "Ignoring the heart" doesn't just mean ignoring the motive, but it also covers ignoring the stuff that doesn't directly pertain to the murders... the 'heart' of the story. You couldn't treat this like a normal mystery in order to arrive at the answer confidently. "Without love, it can't be seen" --- you had to study Beatrice's character and actions in the meta scenes to reach this answer confidently. EP2, while one of the more unexciting ones, held a lot of secrets. Especially considering Beatrice's reaction to Kanon's & Shannon's statements of love during their death scenes.

I know that doesn't help with the issue that Shkanon can't be directly tied into the murders on the gameboard but this is how I think we were supposed to study Umineko.