[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

Most puzzles can be solved by a bullshit loophole, for the simple reason that the author doesn't want to write an entire paragraph of additional clarifications for annoying pedants who just want to make themselves look clever (see: Erika). They generally contain some implicit assumptions (which I think is partly what Ryukishi was getting at with the whole red text thing early on).

It is common sense and usually a good rule to avoid looking for lame loopholes when you are asked to solve a riddle. Because there's always something obvious that the premise forgot to specify

However what I get from Umineko and especially EP8 is that every theory is good as long as it doesn't defy a specified rule, no matter how much lame it is.

I don't like this approach at all, but in my opinion this is exactly what ryuukishi thinks, as shown before with the cheese riddle in EP6, where the "smartest" solution wasn't the one intended by the quiz itself.

Chronotrig has been stating this for a long while.
I really don't like this approach, but I must recognize this is considered "fair game" in Umineko.

[UsagiTenpura]

Since the essence of a mystery or a riddle is for you to "have fun while trying to reason it out", that is pretty fair actually. It's closer to removing pretences then anything to me.

The arc 7 Will intro also a pretty good "hint" of that. We're seeing someone pretty clearly doing that.

In Umineko's case however it feels like understanding the intents of the writer(s) is more important then even reaching an answer at all. There really isn't any need to think out Bern's game further then that, I believe.

Originally Posted by Renall

And that people only brought one set of clothing on an overnight trip.

At least that's not a problem for the servants.

Actually I don't think there's any specific description of their clothes within the story (outside magical beings and Kinzo I think). Unless we assume the message bottles came with as many images as the VN did...

[cronnoponno]

Not to mention Battler saying: ''I bet Erika's logic would have defied the rules and made someone else be the culprit, that's the kind of argument I want to hear!'' at the table with Bernkastel after the riddle.

He didn't say EXACTLY what I quoted, but he said something pretty much like that.


But as for Bernkastel's red truth, yeah, I totally missed that it was said before Kanon's death, I feel like a total idiot now.

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

However what I get from Umineko and especially EP8 is that every theory is good as long as it doesn't defy a specified rule, no matter how much lame it is.

I don't like this approach at all, but in my opinion this is exactly what ryuukishi thinks, as shown before with the cheese riddle in EP6, where the "smartest" solution wasn't the one intended by the quiz itself.

Chronotrig has been stating this for a long while.
I really don't like this approach, but I must recognize this is considered "fair game" in Umineko.

...Really? Even after Will talks about cutting down "heartless" solutions that clearly don't fit what the author was intending but which could technically be right? And for the cheese solution... well, is Erika presented as someone we're meant to be emulating? I feel like the message has been the exact opposite.

In any case, Battler tries this for the first four episodes ("Secret passages! Person X! Trap X! Simultaneous murder! Small bombs!") and only progresses to understand everything after he realises this attitude is stupid and useless. I think that's part of the epiphany he has at the end of ep5 ("The author wants me to solve this puzzle, therefore I should be working with what they've written rather than fighting against them by finding every little loophole").

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

...Really? Even after Will talks about cutting down "heartless" solutions that clearly don't fit what the author was intending but which could technically be right? And for the cheese solution... well, is Erika presented as someone we're meant to be emulating? I feel like the message has been the exact opposite.

In any case, Battler tries this for the first four episodes ("Secret passages! Person X! Trap X! Simultaneous murder! Small bombs!") and only progresses to understand everything after he realises this attitude is stupid and useless. I think that's part of the epiphany he has at the end of ep5 ("The author wants me to solve this puzzle, therefore I should be working with what they've written rather than fighting against them by finding every little loophole").

I got the full quote:

Beatrice:''Come on now, this is Erika we're talking about. She'll probably pull out some twisted logic and say that it was possible for someone other than Battler's family.''

Battler:''Good point. in fact, I'd like to hear her proud, twisted logic even more than the right answer.''

Come on, was Ryu really not giving us a hint to try and think outside the box?(pun not intended).

Will was probably talking about the author of the detective story he was in at the time when he talked about them heartlessly making the servants into the culprit.

[AuraTwilight]

However what I get from Umineko and especially EP8 is that every theory is good as long as it doesn't defy a specified rule, no matter how much lame it is.

I don't like this approach at all, but in my opinion this is exactly what ryuukishi thinks, as shown before with the cheese riddle in EP6, where the "smartest" solution wasn't the one intended by the quiz itself.

Chronotrig has been stating this for a long while.
I really don't like this approach, but I must recognize this is considered "fair game" in Umineko.

I'm not sure I consider the loophole Erika usedin EP8 and Battler's answer to the cheese riddle to beat all comparable; one is a loophole you can replicate in real life, demonstrating an actual problem in the physics of the puzzle and demonstrating that the given answer is objectively wrong, and the other is Erika basically pulling a bullshit semantics argument.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm not sure I consider the loophole Erika usedin EP8 and Battler's answer to the cheese riddle to beat all comparable; one is a loophole you can replicate in real life, demonstrating an actual problem in the physics of the puzzle and demonstrating that the given answer is objectively wrong, and the other is Erika basically pulling a bullshit semantics argument.

Or, you can say it's an Erika that has matured from her previous concept of ''There can only be one truth'', which is pretty much the theme of Umineko. If we consider Bern's game an indirect battle between us and Ryukishi like he said before Bern's game started, all of this starts to make more sense.


And on the concept of Battler's Anti-Fantasy style arguments with Beatrice, those are completely justified. Beatrice did not teach him how to fight, other than indirectly giving him hints because she could not outright express her love. Since it has never been stated that the tales followed mystery's rule, they could have been any genre at that point, and if they were based on real life, there could be millions of secret passages in a rich guy's house, who is leading a double life.

Plus, Battler was pressured with the ''how dunnit'', this game is much simpler, merely the ''whodunnit''. If all Battler had to figure out was the ''whodunnit'' and didn't have to explain every bit and trick, he would have kicked Beatrice's ass faster.

[UsagiTenpura]

I think all of this is the same.
Battler figured out the 3 answer instantly but rejected it because it didn't satisfy him. It lead him to the 1 answer.
Will rejected the story showing the maid as the culprit being the truth because it didn't satisfy him. Using his own logic he came to a conclusion that satisfied him.
Ange rejected the truth shown to her in early arc 8 because it didn't satisfy her (as well as the arc 7 tea party).
Erika's greatest pleasure is in defeating the mind of others. She certain won't be satisfied by an answer given so easily. She's looking for a truth that can satisfy her sense of superiority.
Many fans rejects many solutions because it doesn't satisfy us.

"The truth" doesn't matter, nor how "realistic" or how much "twisted or not" it is. It's just looking for what satisfy each of us. The various meta world theories shows that pretty well I think.

[Renall]

From a literary standpoint, why would an answer that is wrong or not intended be provided by the author at a point in the story after revealing the correct one?

[AuraTwilight]

Or, you can say it's an Erika that has matured from her previous concept of ''There can only be one truth'', which is pretty much the theme of Umineko. If we consider Bern's game an indirect battle between us and Ryukishi like he said before Bern's game started, all of this starts to make more sense.

That's my personal stance, but it doesn't change the fact that Erika's loophole and Battler's answer to the cheese riddle aren't really comparable.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

From a literary standpoint, why would an answer that is wrong or not intended be provided by the author at a point in the story after revealing the correct one?

Why not?
I mean you seem to imply it has never been done before.

Edit: Right now I'd have to assume what you find wrong with it and create counter arguments for these assumption. Since I don't get what's wrong myself, I'd rather let you explain it.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Why not?
I mean you seem to imply it has never been done before.

Edit: Right now I'd have to assume what you find wrong with it and create counter arguments for these assumption. Since I don't get what's wrong myself, I'd rather let you explain it.

I think he is saying that it wasn't a ''mistake'' if he purposely pointed it out even if the ''right'' answer was spoken. He is basically saying:

''Come on, do you really think they would present an exploitable loophole, and then call it out after the right answer was explained and use ''it was Erika's bullet to use in a fight'' as an excuse to cover that up? This is clearly intentional!''

I think.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm not sure I consider the loophole Erika usedin EP8 and Battler's answer to the cheese riddle to beat all comparable; one is a loophole you can replicate in real life, demonstrating an actual problem in the physics of the puzzle and demonstrating that the given answer is objectively wrong, and the other is Erika basically pulling a bullshit semantics argument.

I disagree.

In the first place the cheese solution was exploiting the "rule" that the cheese can't break (which would in reality)
In addition saying that a thin slice of cheese can qualify as a big cheese, as it was clearly specified in the explanation, is as smartass as to claim that a rhino can be a house pet.

So no, in my opinion the two situations are absolutely comparable.

[AuraTwilight]

Cheese won't break if it's soft or round enough, and a slice of cheese can be big if it's wide and large enough despite it's thinness. I was able to reproduce Battler's solution in reality. I can't do that with Erika's loophole.

[Jan-Poo]

I was able to reproduce Battler's solution in reality.

You are lying you haven't even tried.

I can't do that with Erika's loophole.

What do you mean you can't do it? Well of course I don't expect you to go around killing people. But there's absolutely nothing impossible about someone having already killed people before a specific crime. And that's what Erika's loophole is about.

Besides trying to use real life logic inside Bern's game is stupid since the situation itself is absolutely unrealistic.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

I think he is saying that it wasn't a ''mistake'' if he purposely pointed it out even if the ''right'' answer was spoken. He is basically saying:

''Come on, do you really think they would present an exploitable loophole, and then call it out after the right answer was explained and use ''it was Erika's bullet to use in a fight'' as an excuse to cover that up? This is clearly intentional!''

I think.

Right, now I can see that when pointed out. My bad.
The message was so standalone that it seemed to me like complaining about Ryuukishi's use of such a scene.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I was able to reproduce Battler's solution in reality

It'd be great if you could upload a video of this on youtube.

[AuraTwilight]

You are lying you haven't even tried.

I guess you're a mindreader, then? Folding cheese and cutting it isn't difficult.

What do you mean you can't do it? Well of course I don't expect you to go around killing people. But there's absolutely nothing impossible about someone having already killed people before a specific crime. And that's what Erika's loophole is about.

Besides trying to use real life logic inside Bern's game is stupid since the situation itself is absolutely unrealistic.

Exactly; Erika's logic goes against the spirit of the riddle; Battler's doesn't, though it is contrary to the solution presented.

It'd be great if you could upload a video of this on youtube.

I'll make a note of it; just one more thing to upload when I get a nice enough webcam.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I guess you're a mindreader, then? Folding cheese and cutting it isn't difficult.



Exactly; Erika's logic goes against the spirit of the riddle; Battler's doesn't, though it is contrary to the solution presented.



I'll make a note of it; just one more thing to upload when I get a nice enough webcam.

On the cheese topic, I've tried folding cheese before, it breaks apart before I can fold it, must be a special kind of cheese.

Also, I don't think Erika's logic goes against anything really. It was clearly intended as well.

[Kylon99]

Isn't it more that with the cheese puzzle, it said the word 'cheese' but it failed to bind the limits of the problem in order for it to have one solution.

Whereas with Bernkastel's puzzle, it's implied that the scenario is complete and should be limited to what was shown to have that one solution, but you can expand on the scenario to come up with more solutions, which isn't really the way the puzzle should be looked at.


If we were to look back at the cheese solution, that would be like using a laser knife to cut the cheese which is *technically* a knife, but not the one the puzzle really meant when it said 'knife.'

Like that?

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

On the cheese topic, I've tried folding cheese before, it breaks apart before I can fold it, must be a special kind of cheese.

You can kinda curl it and stand it on its edge and cut down on the edge rather that from the top...

Sorta like if you make it more like an S on the table and cut straight down with the cheese standing like an S onto the table. Maybe that will work. 8)

[cronnoponno]

That actually might work.


However, I have a question for you all:


If a piece is only capable of doing what it's master is capable of doing.....

How did Bernkastel make this loophole, yet Erika was the one who pointed it out?
Why did Battler and Beatrice forshadow it? Then again now that I think about it you could argue she left Bernkastels care after becoming a witch.....but why then does she still have authority? Her approval was needed for her resurrection so she's clearly still her piece.


Bernkastel must have done it on purpose like Lyrical Aura suggested in the previous page.