[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by navitaro

There is something I do not understand, if the secret opening says no knox or dine, and Dlanor and Virgilia recognized this, why since Dlanor appeared why Battler and Erika's theories had to follow the decalogue.

Spoiler for space:

It's basically saying that if it doesn't follow them it's not fair to the readers. Not that Umineko doesn't follow them.

Later the opening even says that "no Dine means to starve demanding the fair and die." and it's signed "Witch in Gold, Beatrice"

[navitaro]

Ohh thanks, now I understand it better.

In the second twilinght of the first game, that wasn't a closed room right? (Only if the theory that says shannon=kannon, because if she was "dead" he could not cut the chain right?)

[alviam099]

If my source is right Kanon and Genji lied about the chains being there I don't know really

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Judoh

That's exactly the thought process I was suggesting for him.

Ah... my bad then. I thought you were saying he went for Asumu, simply because he thought she'd be a good mother. Whereas, I was saying he married her, because he could be at peace.

But, anyway, I think that scene and part of EP7 does show Rudolph did love Asumu, unlike what Kyrie had seemed imply back in EP3 and other instances. I guess this is yet another example from Umineko that says you shouldn't try to force reason on matters of the heart. That's what Kyrie did, the reality of the situation passed her by without her noticing, and she ended up enduring a lot of pain herself as a result, filling herself with envy and other possible negative emotions.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Judoh

There are a series of scenes in episode 5 showing the adults suspicions before the conference takes place. After Kyrie's conversation with Rudolf about Krauss there is a scene where Hideyoshi suggests Kinzo is dead to Eva and he eventually convinces her of the possibility. Later Rudolf calls Rosa about a meeting between the siblings, and convinces Rosa to come by saying Eva will be there leading to the family conference's talk about Kinzo and the inheritance. The fact that almost every episode state that Kinzo has been estimated to have 3 months to live for quite a few years doesn't hurt the chances of them figuring it out either. There are probably some things I missed too.

The adults get smarter over time. In ep1 it's clear Eva is suspicious of something regarding Kinzo, but her immediate suggestion is that Natsuhi murdered him rather than "he was dead all along and not in the room." In ep2, no one is suspicious and Rosa even lies about him being alive. In ep3, there's not much mention of it and he turns up early, so the matter is dropped. It's only in ep4 that anyone shows a genesis of the idea that he's already dead, and in this instance it's Kyrie.

But in ep5, Hideyoshi seems to have the idea first. Now, there are a lot of ways we could look at this:

• The adults are always suspicious, but don't want to come out and say it unless somebody else does first.
• The adults are less suspicious in earlier episodes where it wasn't "known" that Kinzo was dead. Once authors figure it out, so do the adults.
• The adults were never suspicious, but the writers were. There are enough hints in the first two episodes to suggest it, but the message bottle writer didn't want to reveal it for whatever reason. Later writers turned suspicion into plot points. The only suitable vehicles for the plot thread are the adults, so it's the adults who "become" suspicious.

I think the first is most likely, since Eva's behavior has consistently been characterized by suspicion regarding Kinzo.

Bear in mind too that in ep6 it's offhandedly mentioned that, since Battler didn't want Kinzo to be a major issue in his game, the "Kinzo is dead" topic is not strongly explored. Reading between the lines there, the ep6 author either didn't care or didn't think it mattered to the story of Dawn. You'll note that even the meta-world tracks this, and does not bother bringing up Kinzo as a Logic Error solution (of course it's not a workable solution, but it isn't readily disprovable by Erika), or addressing him at all after the location check. So some authors just consider it more important, and the plot necessitates that someone raise the idea. Who the author chooses could speak volumes about who they are...

Finally, note that we don't actually know if Kinzo was dead. Only that he was dead for all "games." In other words, he is dead in all Rokkenjima fictions. There is no objective way to determine if he was in "reality." If he wasn't before Oct. 6, 1986, he certainly was from then on.

[Smeckledorf]

Pieces are either capable or incapable of something and unfortunately we cannot be sure of which of the adult conferences hold most true due to the witch's interpretation.
So, the only difference in knowledge in each of the games could only come from something the piece learned during the game.

[Renall]

Information has never actually been at issue. "Nature" has. Pieces cannot do things they would not do, which has nothing to do with whether or not they were able to do something. Informational differences are obviously fluid enough to permit variation in the stories. So I see no reason that all of the pieces must necessarily enter every story with identical knowledge. If that's so, they can either arrive with suspicions of Kinzo's death or not, and the degree to which they are suspicious can vary greatly (compare ep4 and ep5 to ep6).

Eva at least, however, always seems to suspect it.

[Smeckledorf]

History before the game never changes. So, anything a piece knew before a game is what that piece will know before every game.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

History before the game never changes. So, anything a piece knew before a game is what that piece will know before every game.

It's impossible that no informational inputs change. Otherwise every game would be the same. You're also making the assumption that the starting conditions for every game are the same, but if they were it would not be necessary to append "this applies to all games" to certain information. Which isn't to say they are not all set up with the same conditions, but I don't think you can back the claim with anything more than preferential supposition, particularly if the characters can know only so much as the author thinks they know. Even if Author Theory is not true, it's flawed to suppose that the games have absolutely identical inputs, as at the very least people's inclinations to do or not do certain things seem largely uncaused by preceding alterable or unalterable events. And saying something like Erika's appearance is not caused by an aberrant outside influence is disingenuous just because it happens "after the game has started." It is clearly an altered input, and Lambdadelta treats it as such.

But let's compromise, because I don't actually disagree with you: I think all the adults come into the scenario suspicious that Kinzo may in fact be dead. They remain this way until pushed either toward or away from their suspicions. If anyone suggests Kinzo is dead, everyone begins to think about it harder. If no one does prior to the murders, people's minds are less sharp from the shock and being told "Father said he's staying in his study" is more likely to be accepted. Likewise, the appearance of Kinzo's body causes them to jump to the conclusion that he was alive until very recently. Thus if an author wishes to raise the issue of Kinzo's death, he or she must do so before the plot kicks in. It's quite unusual for a case like ep5 to continue the matter, though given the objectives of the characters (and the author?), it makes some sense that they would continue to dwell on it.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Renall

It's impossible that no informational inputs change. Otherwise every game would be the same. You're also making the assumption that the starting conditions for every game are the same, but if they were it would not be necessary to append "this applies to all games" to certain information.

Except it is impossible to be certain that something applies to all games if history can change.

I can't say why the adults seem more adamant in some cases than others when questioning whether or not Kinzo is alive, but I would say that has to do with strategy. A combination of trying to corner and appease Krauss. Sometimes they lean more one way than another. However, I can't be sure what the exact reason is.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Except it is impossible to be certain that something applies to all games if history can change.

The red truth is simply truth, and there is no need to provide evidence, proof, or room for a counter-argument!!

It ain't fair, but there it is. That red presumably narrows the set of selectable worlds/stories to those which meet the preconditions (thus, "a world in which Kinzo is alive" is not permitted, but "a world in which no one suspects Kinzo is dead" may or may not be).

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

History before the game never changes. So, anything a piece knew before a game is what that piece will know before every game.

Episode 7 called. It says it wants you to pay the medical bills for treating the concussion brought about by the epic facepalm it just did.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Episode 7 called. It says it wants you to pay the medical bills for treating the concussion brought about by the epic facepalm it just did.

What part of ep7 was the "game board?" Serious question.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

What part of ep7 was the "game board?" Serious question.

The Episode 6 ??? where Auaurora asks Bernkastel to use it in order to show her "the truth". He said "games", not the "game board" itself. Whether or not Episode 7 can be considered to be the same game as the previous Episodes is, of course, still up to one's own personal interpretation.

But it's the same catbox as the rest, to be sure, or else there simply isn't any point, even for the sake of trolling. And we can't forget that Bernkastel has a healthy fear of Featherine, so it's unlikely she'd go out of her way to troll her and thus possibly piss her off by using a completely different game board to tell a completely inaccurate story depicting the events of those two days.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by TehChron

The Episode 6 ??? where Auaurora asks Bernkastel to use it in order to show her "the truth". He said "games", not the "game board" itself. Whether or not Episode 7 can be considered to be the same game as the previous Episodes is, of course, still up to one's own personal interpretation.

But it's the same catbox as the rest, to be sure, or else there simply isn't any point, even for the sake of trolling. And we can't forget that Bernkastel has a healthy fear of Featherine, so it's unlikely she'd go out of her way to troll her and thus possibly piss her off by using a completely different game board to tell a completely inaccurate story depicting the events of those two days.

I don't think you understand.

In the ep6 ???, the two of them set up a board. At the end of ep7, we see them finishing with that board with Bern "taking" Will and Lion's pieces, and that follows directly from the situation in the Tea Party.

And that's fine, if that's the only part of the episode. But we actually have three semi-discrete, semi-unified segments: Will's investigation, Claire's story, and the Tea Party, which most closely resembles the "game board" with which we are familiar.

And so I am asking you: Which of those parts, if any (or all), are Bern's board? And how can we know that?

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by TehChron

The Episode 6 ??? where Auaurora asks Bernkastel to use it in order to show her "the truth". He said "games", not the "game board" itself. Whether or not Episode 7 can be considered to be the same game as the previous Episodes is, of course, still up to one's own personal interpretation.

But it's the same catbox as the rest, to be sure, or else there simply isn't any point, even for the sake of trolling. And we can't forget that Bernkastel has a healthy fear of Featherine, so it's unlikely she'd go out of her way to troll her and thus possibly piss her off by using a completely different game board to tell a completely inaccurate story depicting the events of those two days.

It's explicitly not the same cat box, but a larger one that contains the original one. That's how Bern's able to present an alternate universe for Will in the first place. Bern clearly thinks that the truth she presented is applicable, and maybe most of it is, but we don't actually have any assurance of that.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

I don't think you understand.

In the ep6 ???, the two of them set up a board. At the end of ep7, we see them finishing with that board with Bern "taking" Will and Lion's pieces, and that follows directly from the situation in the Tea Party.

And that's fine, if that's the only part of the episode. But we actually have three semi-discrete, semi-unified segments: Will's investigation, Claire's story, and the Tea Party, which most closely resembles the "game board" with which we are familiar.

And so I am asking you: Which of those parts, if any (or all), are Bern's board? And how can we know that?

Let's start with the simplest one to prove, namely Will's investigation, which also happens to include the most glaring example of a change to past events. Namely the existence of Lion.

Bernkastel actively created it, guides Will along it, has set it up to include the normal cast of characters, and generally abide by similar rules as the preceding games. For all intents and purposes, it's the same game as the previous episodes, just on a different game board. The inclusion of Will and Lion, as well as the difference in the setup of the chapel, are all distortions from the other games, due to alterations of events prior to the game start itself.

I understand perfectly well. But the claim that "there are no changes to the events prior to the game in all episodes" is simply erroneous.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Let's start with the simplest one to prove, namely Will's investigation, which also happens to include the most glaring example of a change to past events. Namely the existence of Lion.

Bernkastel actively created it, guides Will along it, has set it up to include the normal cast of characters, and generally abide by similar rules as the preceding games. For all intents and purposes, it's the same game as the previous episodes, just on a different game board. The inclusion of Will and Lion, as well as the difference in the setup of the chapel, are all distortions from the other games, due to alterations of events prior to the game start itself.

Bern appearing as a character on a "board" is actually a very unusual event. Did you notice that? Bern and Lambda almost never "descend" to the board. That doesn't mean they can't, mind you. But they usually don't. Will also doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as a board character, as we explicitly know from his provided backstory that he is not a normal human being. Yet everyone more or less treats him as if he were.

So that's weird.

Then the Claire stuff, which Lion clearly references at the Tea Party when Claire appears, yet which otherwise is relatively insulated from the other parts of the episode.

It's kind of a twisty mess, and what happens where and what it even means for something to happen in a "place" on the meta-fictional structure is really, really important. And I won't go lecturing you on that with respect to ep7 because I have no idea yet which parts go where.

I understand perfectly well. But the claim that "there are no changes to the events prior to the game in all episodes" is simply erroneous.

You apparently don't understand that I never made that claim. So... I agree?

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

You apparently don't understand that I never made that claim. So... I agree?

Dear lord in heaven, you didn't even read who I quoted, did you?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Dear lord in heaven, you didn't even read who I quoted, did you?

You only quoted me. If you intended to quote somebody else, I don't see it in there, and I thought from the response you were suggesting it was my point. Sorry if I got the wrong idea.