[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

The only chance Battler had to escape was after I broke the seal.

Doesn't matter.

The rescuer is defined as the person who reset the chain lock after Battler unset it. Let us set aside the question of whether the rescue was intentional.

Kanon can still enter the room at this point in time and according to the red he does.

[Laserworm]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Doesn't matter.

The rescuer is defined as the person who reset the chain lock after Battler unset it. Let us set aside the question of whether the rescue was intentional.

Kanon can still enter the room at this point in time and according to the red he does.

Ok my bad. I thought you were trying to say that Battler left before that and Kanon was in the room before Erika entered.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Killer breaks seal, enters room, searches bathroom first and gets distracted by trap.

Battler leaves room.

Kanon enters room, sets chain, goes into closet.

Killer leaves bathroom, assumes Battler is in the closet, shoots it and kills Kanon.

I don't see any problem with a person thinking they'd killed Battler when they really hadn't.

There is one problem with my theory if we assume Kanon's the fifth victim.

she completely severed all of the victims' heads.

I'm wondering whether she carried the severed heads with her after she killed them.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Judoh

There is one problem with my theory if we assume Kanon's the fifth victim.

she completely severed all of the victims' heads.

I'm wondering whether she carried the severed heads with her after she killed them.

That's not really a problem if Erika's being dissociated from the actual killings that happened. That is, if the person who killed Kanon then cut off his head, but Erika did not see this.

I don't see a particularly logical reason to be cutting people's heads off in the first place, as it's very much out of character for any killing previously in the series. There were some sliced throats, but no complete severances. This could suggest a new killer, or the use of a non-preferred weapon.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

Ok my bad. I thought you were trying to say that Battler left before that and Kanon was in the room before Erika entered.

Actually what I was about to imply was that the first twilight victim who represents the killer faked her death in the same room as Battler and killed everyone after he was rescued.

Oh wait but she can't break the seal that way.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

That's not really a problem if Erika's being dissociated from the actual killings that happened. That is, if the person who killed Kanon then cut off his head, but Erika did not see this.

I don't see a particularly logical reason to be cutting people's heads off in the first place, as it's very much out of character for any killing previously in the series. There were some sliced throats, but no complete severances. This could suggest a new killer, or the use of a non-preferred weapon.

This is also the first time in the series that all of the mothers have been victims. In previous games at least one of the mothers always survived the first twilight. If we were going to go for a motive for that the killer would have to be someone who loved all of the mothers enough to kill them. A yandere. If the killer loved them enough to want to keep their heads as souvenirs than that suggests the killer is a man or someone with deep emotional attachments to people in the family.

I'm also wondering if Battler knew about how one or more of the mothers usually survived the first twilight in the question arcs and if he deliberately set up the game this way knowing that.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Simple. Erika doesn't have a body. She's not here. There's Meta-Erika, but no Piece-Erika. It's not that she has an unreliable POV or a subject viewpoint. It's that she doesn't have a point of view of her own at all, and what we think is her viewpoint simply isn't. She has a detective status, but that only translates into her ability to pose questions to the gamemaster, who responds by moving pieces to comply and telling her what they say. What we see as 'Erika seeing X' is actually Meta-Erika getting someone's testimony about them seeing that X.

Which, as a side note, might have been the 'very poisonous' thing Ryukishi wanted to use in Ep3 but didn't -- kill Battler off early, pretend he's not dead for the rest of the episode.

Erika has a body, whether it's her own body or someone else's body she has a body unless you claim red truths are false.

One of the basic tenets of the ghosterika is that the "Erika" in red truths refers to a person in a gameboard even if that person isn't actually Erika Furudo.

That "Erika" has a body, is in the gameboard, and being the detective she should have an absolutely reliable perspective.

The idea that Erika doesn't have a POW then is completely unreasonable. She has a POW. Even admitting she isn't physically in the gameboard, she still has a POW as a spectator from the metaworld. If you think that that isn't a POW then you are redefining the meaning of POW.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The idea that Erika doesn't have a POW then is completely unreasonable. She has a POW. Even admitting she isn't physically in the gameboard, she still has a POW as a spectator from the metaworld. If you think that that isn't a POW then you are redefining the meaning of POW.

That's my perspective as well. Though I think his point is that, if her Meta-POV is the only POV Erika has, that it can be lied to by the Game Master. I guess.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The idea that Erika doesn't have a POW then is completely unreasonable. She has a POW. Even admitting she isn't physically in the gameboard, she still has a POW as a spectator from the metaworld. If you think that that isn't a POW then you are redefining the meaning of POW.

Um. A POW is a Prisoner Of War. Sorry.

To further clarify that yet again, Erika has a 'point of view', but my idea is, that as Erika does not exist in red, from that point of view, the events on the board cannot be seen directly, and are only heard of -- from the current gamemaster or possibly other meta-entities.

Which means that while Erika has an Objective Detective Viewpoint, from that viewpoint she can only say that it is a fact, that Gamemaster told her that Erika did X... which has no bearing on what really happened on the board. What we see as Erika's adventures and actions on the board are actually nothing but magic scenes, to be taken with the same scrutiny as other magic scenes.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Renall

That's my perspective as well. Though I think his point is that, if her Meta-POV is the only POV Erika has, that it can be lied to by the Game Master. I guess.

Not just "can be lied to". Has to be lied to -- just to be there. There is no other way Erika's Objective Detective Viewpoint can see someone else as Erika, because Erika is not permitted to lie about being there to the readers, and she is not there, a 18th person does not exist.

So she has to be relaying someone else's lie.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Not just "can be lied to". Has to be lied to -- just to be there. There is no other way Erika's Objective Detective Viewpoint can see someone else as Erika, because Erika is not permitted to lie about being there to the readers, and she is not there, a 18th person does not exist.

So she has to be relaying someone else's lie.

So I suppose what you're saying is that Meta-Erika is not a detective, but a prosecutor. Her POV is absolutely reliable, but the "witnesses" are lying? I don't know if that's supportible or not, but I understand it I guess.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Renall

So I suppose what you're saying is that Meta-Erika is not a detective, but a prosecutor. Her POV is absolutely reliable, but the "witnesses" are lying? I don't know if that's supportible or not, but I understand it I guess.

If you prefer to say that, for example, Father Brown in The Sign of the Broken Sword is not the detective but a prosecutor, sure, but I think the difference is immaterial. A detective solves the mystery using available information. Where that information comes from and how reliable it is has no bearing on the detective status, as long as we get it as he gets it.

Imagine, for example, a story wherein the Hero ends up with about 24 hours of memory loss. He is then told by multiple people that during those 24 hours, a closed circle murder occurred, and he was present, and they describe various scenes from what happened. After piecing together a theory he realises it works only if he has been the culprit, but it is well supported by testimony. Later he finds out that he was not anywhere near this place, but was hospitalised -- and all the testimony actually converged to make him think he was in the closed circle with everyone, because it was a deliberate lie by multiple people for different unrelated reasons. Contrived, I know, but I'm not about to write one right now.

Is the Hero a detective in this story? Undeniably yes. Was his perspective reliable? Yes. Was he actually there? Nope. In Umineko that works easier, because the gamemaster is the central relay who tells the story and can twist the truth in a more organised fashion.

I'm not sure it's very well supported for Erika, but the alternatives seem to be worse:

• The detective has no obligation to be a reliable narrator in this story even after all the loud proclamations. Poof, we can't solve it.
• Someone actually disguises as Erika. q.v. Shkanon.
• Erika is mysteriously unaware that she is not Erika really and doesn't even look at her own hands, but everyone else supports character X in thinking they're Erika.

No, really?

[Smeckledorf]

The key in the whole detective issue is that the detective is not reliable. The detective has the potential to find key information but can also miss it. For example, Battler. Battler did zip as detective though he was claimed to be detective for the first 3 episodes.
I think detective in this story is more like a super power, Spider-Man isn't constantly shooting webs but he can choose to do so. I am not exactly sure what Oliver is trying to say but this would be my opinion on detectives in Umineko.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

The key in the whole detective issue is that the detective is not reliable. The detective has the potential to find key information but can also miss it. For example, Battler. Battler did zip as detective though he was claimed to be detective for the first 3 episodes.
I think detective in this story is more like a super power, Spider-Man isn't constantly shooting webs but he can choose to do so. I am not exactly sure what Oliver is trying to say but this would be my opinion on detectives in Umineko.

Erm, I think this basically is a restatement of one of Knox's Commandments:

The mystery cannot be solved with clues not presented to the reader.

The detective can miss clues. However, all the clues that are used in the "verdict" must be discovered by the detective (and thus the reader).

So, Battler's enlightenment in Episode 5, if he is indeed the detective in Episodes 1-4, can only incorporate information that Battler finds and we are given.

Since Erika is the detective, then she cannot "lie" to us, or "withhold information" from us.

...The problem becomes two things:

1.) Who is Erika?
2.) Is this really a fair-play mystery in the first place?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

...The problem becomes two things:

1.) Who is Erika?
2.) Is this really a fair-play mystery in the first place?

The question you mean to ask is "What is Erika?" We have a tip telling us of a dead body washing up on the island. We see some Erika-Eva connection but what are we to make out of that? Erika seems to be the exact opposite of Maria, but I would say Erika is just suspicion personified.

Spoiler for Episodes 4-6?:

I don't really think Erika is a prevalent matter in the mystery. The mystery is solvable with the information provided in episodes 1-4 and Erika's first appearance was in episode 5. I want to know what Beatrice is. At the end of episode 4 we get a clue that says 'Beatrice is an inanimate object.' Then in episode 5 or 6 (I don't remember which) we see some thoughts of Beatrice's creator which states Beatrice is was created to love Battler because the creator could no longer do so, since inanimate objects are incapable of love Beatrice would have to be a human. Maybe there are two Beatrice? Or maybe Beatrice is a name that could be passed on? Or the creator was Battler in creating the new Beatrice, after figuring out the truth he could no longer love himself?

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

We have a tip telling us of a dead body washing up on the island.

There is nothing of the sort in the TIPS. Erika's body was never found. What is certain is that she fell from a pleasure boat that was passing close to Rokkenjima the day of the family meeting.

Even those who speculate that Erika ended up on Rokkenjima (which is a farfetched theory totally made up by "witch hunters") say that Erika washed there still alive, not dead.

It's not the first time that I come across this false rumor....


@Oliver: There are two problems I have with your way to see it. The first is the fact that you assume Erika is seeing the gameboard through the eyes of the Game Master. This is totally at odd with what we see in EP6. Since the Game Master of EP6 is Battler and if really everything that Erika sees is filtered through Battler's eyes, then how it is possible that Erika can do anything without Battler knowing it?

For Example, how Erika can have a 100% certainty that Natsuhi died, while Battler does not?

And here comes the second problem. The matter of having a 100% reliable perspective but a not reliable source of information is a logic loophole that I don't think would be allowed by Dlanor's standards.
And the problem here comes from the fact if really Erika doesn't have a 100% reliable source of information, then she couldn't tell with 100% certainty that Natsuhi and the others were dead.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

I don't really think Erika is a prevalent matter in the mystery. The mystery is solvable with the information provided in episodes 1-4 and Erika's first appearance was in episode 5. I want to know what Beatrice is. At the end of episode 4 we get a clue that says 'Beatrice is an inanimate object.' Then in episode 5 or 6 (I don't remember which) we see some thoughts of Beatrice's creator which states Beatrice is was created to love Battler because the creator could no longer do so, since inanimate objects are incapable of love Beatrice would have to be a human. Maybe there are two Beatrice? Or maybe Beatrice is a name that could be passed on? Or the creator was Battler in creating the new Beatrice, after figuring out the truth he could no longer love himself?

I kinda agree that trying to solve the Erika mystery is probably not what EP6 intended for us to do. By this I mean what I said before, that I view EP5-6 as bringing up either
- answers
- restating a mystery presented in 1-4 but in a way that would cause you problems if you didn't know already
But that EP5-6 will not bring up new mysteries. For example, none of us are fooled into thinking that Mr. Kaasan represents a new 19th person on the island. He is not a new mystery but a restatement of an earlier problem that you can't have a new Person X on the island, no matter how compelling the idea is. So we've started thinking that Mr. Kaasan is one of the existing guys calling Natsuhi.

However, I think all these theories about Erika came about because people were desperate to explain the count of 17 people if you included Erika. But before this, no one was trying to do anything about her in say, EP5. If you view that EP5-6 present no new mysteries then this count of 17 should be something solvable with information from EP1-4. The theories that Erika do not exist can only be made with EP5-6 information.


I think we've always had this vague notion that Beatrice was two people because of the Suit-Beatrice in EP2 and the usual long-dress Beatrice (not the meta one, but the one on the gameboard.)

EP6's split into Moetrice and Older-Sister-Beatrice kinda provided the answer to us that yes, there were two Beatrices created for two different purposes. One to 'be' the witch of legend and the other one was created to love Battler.

And of course we have the hint from Meta-Beatrice herself that she's some kind of rigged explosion event or device. 8)

By the way, my bet is on Shannon portraying the Beatrice that loves Battler and Jessica portraying the Beatrice of Legend. Though I'm not sure it's always divided on those lines. Some people have also speculated Rosa portrays Beatrice. (At the very least she lies for her faction.)

By the way, in line with the theory I put forth earlier that the servants are also maintaining some kind of illusion... If Shannon is being forced to portray Beatrice, this seems to make more sense. George would feel the need to 'fight the whole family' and Shannon would want to get away from the island and the two would resort to more dangerous moves if they felt threatened.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

There is nothing of the sort in the TIPS. Erika's body was never found. What is certain is that she fell from a pleasure boat that was passing close to Rokkenjima the day of the family meeting.

Even those who speculate that Erika ended up on Rokkenjima (which is a farfetched theory totally made up by "witch hunters") say that Erika washed there still alive, not dead.

It's not the first time that I come across this false rumor....

I haven't checked in a while and I cannot translate kanji without the help of a translator, however I do recall reading a tip where a burnt body was found on the island. I think it was under Erika's or something. I have heard similar things from other people but I did check this. I don't know how far a translator could be off but who knows? I may be recalling something that never happened but I don't believe this to be the case. If someone else rings in saying I'm wrong then I will check some other time but I do not feel like double checking right now.

If Shanon is Beatrice then I would say Battler broke a promise to her and that was his sin. It would explain why Beatrice would get so emotional over a matter that did not particularly involve her. Since Shanon would be Beatrice but Beatrice would not be Shanon.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

However, I think all these theories about Erika came about because people were desperate to explain the count of 17 people if you included Erika. But before this, no one was trying to do anything about her in say, EP5. If you view that EP5-6 present no new mysteries then this count of 17 should be something solvable with information from EP1-4. The theories that Erika do not exist can only be made with EP5-6 information.

Actually nonexistent Erika theories have been around since episode 5. People wanted to keep the spirit of the previous games. So because of that they deny Erika.

a quote I found from /seacats/

these theories emerged because everyone recognized that Erika is not a realistic person. Her behavior makes no sense from a chessboard perspective, and in EP6 particularly she seems to be meta-gaming the whole time. Her piece acts like a witch, not a real person. So if we're to take EP5 and EP6 seriously as real game boards (and I agree that we should), how are we supposed to make sense of her without treating her as a witch and trying to read through the illusions?

[Jan-Poo]

The current Ep6 patch from witch hunt has already all the characters TIPS translated.

none of them mention anything about any corpse found in the island.