2010-07-05, 01:49 | Link #12821 | ||||||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and rule 20 is almost definitely broken Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
2010-07-05, 01:52 | Link #12822 | |||||
Junior Member
|
I wonder though.... Game 5 complied fully with Knox's rules at times....(This might be subject to opinions) But it was never said that Games 1-4 were nor was anything ever bought up from a Game 1-4 riddle(That I can recall) in Game 5.
It could mean that Game 7 will implement Dines rules Going with the rules that have so far been broken.. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2010-07-05, 02:02 | Link #12823 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
That would mean we have to disregard hints in 1-6 to come up with a Dine solution, which I would be reluctant to do. The Van Dine rules are mostly about getting rid of cliches like "the buddy cop", "love interest", "servant" or "the detective culprit" anyway.
__________________
Last edited by Judoh; 2010-07-05 at 02:16. |
||
2010-07-05, 02:16 | Link #12824 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
We still can't be sure if there is more than one culprit or not. Love interest and love at all in life are two different things? I will give you rule 20 on only on one point, the commission of a murder in a locked room after it was broken. Everything else does not matter because it will not lead to the identity of the culprit. Calling me an idiot? You are hellbent on pushing your own theories or whatever so you try to call names? Aren't we mature? And Kylon99, I don't care for terminology. There is proof in works of fiction, so if someone is going to tell me I am wrong, they can cite text that would show it. AKA PROOF.
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 02:22 | Link #12825 | ||||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
What does the logic error have to do with anything?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2010-07-05, 02:30 | Link #12826 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
Yet again, there can be co-culprits and it is not an established fact that there is more than one murderer. So, yea I would say you are hellbent on pushing your theories. Every rule applies directly to the culprit or detective, so the love interest one is the same. So, if I am to understand your last point correctly you believe that Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is written based on what you think? That is a rhetorical question, save face and don't even answer it.
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 02:32 | Link #12827 | |
Junior Member
|
Quote:
The same might be said for Dines rules. In episode 7 They might be used as extra guidelines in place of Knox's rules because Erika bit the big one. |
|
2010-07-05, 02:36 | Link #12828 |
do you know ベアトリーチェ様?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 35
|
Guys, please keep it civil; even if you don't agree with each other, no need for name-calling or rudeness.
Anyway, one more piece of circumstantial evidence for the guy being Van Dine: the anchor necklace, implying a ship connection. And the name, S.S. Van Dine. |
2010-07-05, 02:37 | Link #12829 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-07-05, 02:37 | Link #12830 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
Edit: I can't be 100% sure but I am pretty sure that co-culprit would be defined as a person who helps the culprit. Or in other words a person who knowingly helps the culprit murder other people. And I have no doubt about fan involvement effecting how the story is written, but fan in this case refers to more than one person.
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 02:45 | Link #12832 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 02:53 | Link #12833 | |
Junior Member
|
Quote:
Apart from some general things like the cigarette and the closed room Dine's rules are basically Knox's rules+Restricting who can be the detective and how they can go about that job and 'The love' which would fit in with Bernkastels agenda of pure blood and guts and screams of terror.. Kind of on par with Episode 1. |
|
2010-07-05, 02:59 | Link #12834 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 03:01 | Link #12835 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Smeckledorf, if you can't show proof that the detective status was lost in EP6 then Judoh was right, the Van Dine rules do not hold. I'm not arguing about terminology this time, I want the same kind of proof that you're talking about.
|
2010-07-05, 03:05 | Link #12837 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
Edit: Further proof of Van Dine's already applied rules would be episode 5. Knox's Decalogue states nothing about there being only one detective, yet Battler could not be a detective because there already was one.
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 03:09 | Link #12838 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Erika did say she gave her authority up BTW
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 03:11 | Link #12839 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
By the way, giving up detective's authority and not being the detective are two different things.
__________________
|
|
2010-07-05, 03:12 | Link #12840 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
But, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'logical error.' That has nothing to do with the number of detectives unless you're trying to say that yes, Episode 6 is broken and does not follow the Van Dine rules. |
|
|
|