[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Daniel E.]

I must ask everyone to try and keep this discussion civil. Regardless of how right one think he is, one must always respect the other side of the argument. If anyone continues to cause problems, please report them without replying in this thread.

[ALPHA-Beatrice]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

Rudolf admitted in EP8 that he was going to confess this at the conference. Evidence for this has been there since EP1. Anybody at the conference would have access to this information, if Rudolf decided to tell it in R-Prime. (Including the true ruler of the Ushiromiya family...)

I don't think it's odd for Yasu to use this against Battler in EP4, since her feelings were really hurt because Battler couldn't remember his promise. She stopped the battle (lol) with him as a defense mechanism. She couldn't stand to hear that Battler had forgotten something so pivotal to her, so she asserted that "this Battler is a fake."

That's my take on it, anyway.

I'll concur on Yasu(Beatrice)'s feelings as to why she pulled that move. I'll even admit that it's entirely possible that Rudolf may have confessed everything during Prime.

However I just thought of something, something to utterly deny Yasu in Prime.

In the 7th game's Tea Party, we got a description from Bernkastel about Yasu's character(in this case Lion). That Lion(the successor to the Ushiromiya head) was a character that was a 1 in 1,250,000 shot of being found.

Basically, Lion's character itself makes it impossible for Yasu to exist in prime. In Prime, neither Shannon nor Kanon solved the Epitaph.

I'll grant you it's possible that Rudolf may have confessed to everything in Prime. But when I was thinking about it, the characterization of Lion is quite damning to Yasu's(and Shannon/Kanon being Yasu) IMO.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice

Basically, Lion's character itself makes it impossible for Yasu to exist in prime. In Prime, neither Shannon nor Kanon solved the Epitaph.

I kinda disagree with this. What's impossible about Lion is how he/she was properly raised as a successor from infancy, and thus can openly claim to be a legitimate successor. Lion is Yasu if put in an impossibly ideal situation, Lion is opposite to Yasu in almost everything to stress that point more.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I've considered the possibility as it was one I liked but the problem is that there were no murders until the explosion we would have to explain the following things:
- why Eva went alone in the middle of the night at Kuwadorian or, if she went there previously, decided to spent there the night alone? Because if she knew there was going to be an explosion she would have at least carried with her Hideyoshi and George and if she didn't... it'still weird she went there alone and remained there.
- why Battler also left the main house prior to midnight?
- with who he left? Eva? then how come the two happened to part?
- what is Eva trying to hide with her silence? If she's not the one who caused the explosion and no one was death when she left, she basically shouldn't know what happened so there's nothing she can hide.
- the book of one truth shows some scenes of facts that should have happened (some of which had been after removed but someone in the forum was able to track them back) but if Eva wasn't there then all the book of 1 truth can show is... nothing basically. So, from where those scenes came?

Well, first I have to clarify that by "no murders" I mean "all or at least most were fake deaths". With that being the case, her going to Kuwadorian was more than likely an act of whim or leisure that saved her from the explosion. It's possible that she didn't know of the bombs being activated and so went to Kuwadorian by herself, probably to relax or explore, and didn't bring her family. As for her silence, that's been bugging since it was brought up and I never understood why she would remain silent if not that the story was too horrific to be remembered or she didn't know what happened herself. The latter makes sense for my theory if she didn't know the explosion happened and so can't really tell the press anything since all her side of the story would amount to "We were playing a halloween mystery game for the kids... then I left... and an explosion occured."

As for Battler, wasn't it Yasu herself who brought him over to the submarine in the first place?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I think the problem is that the games present the family as a bunch of people ferociously hating each other while what Battler wanted to say is that likely they had their good and bad moments. So Kinzo might have played with his grandchildren, but might also have yelled at them in a scary way, or beat Jessica up with a wooden sword.

It's like Maria and her mother. Their relation had moments that were horrible and moments that were very good. Maria wanted to pick up only the good moments, rejecting the bad and blaming them on the bad witch, Ange instead wanted to see only the bad ones and wave off the good ones as a delusion.

There's a scene similar in EP 6, when Kanon remembers the good sides of the people living on the island.

Battler with her game likely tried to make Ange remember of the good sides of their family, although he might have purposely abused in showing her only the nice sides in attempt to make her focus on them.
Like with Kinzo's presents. Likely Kinzo personally picked up the present for his grandchildren as long as he had been alive but by 1986, contrary to what Battler showed, he was already dead and couldn't pick up a thing.

Yeah, but I consider it a great revelation though. It forces us to rethink the value of their motives.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, I'll argue that turning a switch on and waiting for it to blast away everyone requires a certain cold bloodness. It'll be different if the bomb would go off as soon as she turn on the switch, it could be done in a moment of anger/irritation/desperation/whatever and she would not have the time to think at the consequences of what she does but, as soon as she has the time to think, unless she remains in a highly emotional state and unable to rationalize, well, she coldly set the others up to die.

Of course there's the problem we don't know when the switch was turned on and in which status Yasu was and if she remained as such so it's even possible she didn't have the time to calm down. Still this would require something to happen to her that would upset her greatly and that would push her to act without following a plan but just her instinct.

True, true. Battler forgetting his promise was seemingly the trigger, so I would assume her mental state pretty much plummeted after that point and she turned on the switch. Battler did imply that he was the cause of why Beatrice "sinned" in R- Prime. Maybe she temporarily lost herself in emotion and activated the switch? I mean, if EP 7 and EP 8 are anything to go by, she didn't really have her wits about her.

[Higurashi-Z]

Quote:
- I keep my promises(
I need the context here. May just relate to Meta Beatrice.

Renall already made a good post explaining the 2 type of red and that red is the second type and standing for all the games. And one more red from the end of the 8th novel by bern when she is talking about R-prime:
-Beatrice died in October of 1986.
This means that at least in october of 1986 there was someone who could answer for the name "beatrice". In the rosatrice theory this person is Rosa while in the Shkanontrice is Yasu. This means that it isn't valid only for meta-beatrice because as battler said is valid for R-prime and bern's red made clear that this person existed there. If Rosa is the beatrice refered by bern, isn't she going against the red about keeping promises?

Spoiler for screenshot:

The red said by battler on this page is valid for all the games and prime too. Isn't the motive of george( at least as is written on the wiki) hate for his family and wanting to live with shannon contradictory with the red?

[Leafsnail]

I think the first four games are actually Knox compliant. If we use the generally accepted solutions:

It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story.
Beatrice is mentioned before any of the murders happen, which is reasonably early.

It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique.
Battler is not magic.

It is forbidden for hidden passages to exist.
The epitaph arguably violates this, but DIanor had no problem stating this in episode 5 even though those hidden passages were shown. I'm guessing it's ok since those passages weren't used in the commission of the crimes.

It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used.
This hits Rosatrice but not the generally accepted theory.

It is forbidden for accident or intuition to be employed as a detective technique.
Battler never really makes any progress as a detective at all, therefore he didn't make any by accident/intuition.

It is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit.
Battler is not the culprit in the first four episodes.

It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.
None of the cases are resolved at all. Therefore they cannot have been resolved with unpresented clues.

It is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard.
Sure why not.

It is forbidden for a character to disguise themselves as another without any clues.
Note the wording: it's not a disguise unless you're pretending to be someone you aren't.

Actually I'd say these rules almost apply to every game, including the ep7 Tea Party and ep8 purple text game (since the last three games do not have detectives). The one exception I can think of is episode 5, in which Erika uses either magic or extreme intuition as a detective technique. Then again DIanor didn't seem to mind stating the decalogue in spite of that.

e: The first five episodes probably comply with the SSVDs that are stated in red too. I'd suggest the last three might not count due to having no detective and therefore not being "detective fiction". I think you'd have a hard time claiming episode 6 complies with rule 1 at all.

It is forbidden to have a crime without all clues presented.
Battler never actively conceals stuff from us, and the crimes are soluble considering that a lot of people solved them.

It is forbidden to have a crime without a corpse.
The wording in this one is sortof tricky. Personality death is not a crime, so it doesn't need to leave a corpse.

It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit!
Beatrice is nobody's servant.

So overall I think it's fine to suppose that the rules stated apply to all games.

[jTiKey]

But we have explicit statements that they cannot be known to apply. See above.

All that i wrote about Rosatrice is considered as Blue Truth. If you don't agree, give me a red statement or logic error, or just disagree.

Battler is saying that there are two kinds of red truth:
Things which are true only on a specific board; and
Things which are generally true.

That is your partial interpretation, and not what Battler said.
He divides red truth into only 2 kind, which he specifies:
1) Death, scenes and alibies which are true only on a specific board; and
2) Other's, which are general.

Dive and Knox aren't "death, scenes and alibies."

Beatrice never says her game obeys certain rules, and she certainly never says so in red.

But it is TOLD in RED. The red is truth no matter WHO uses it.

3. There must be no love interest [between the detective and the culprit].

So is there love interest between the Game Master and the player? Where did any game end because "I love you, so I don't care"?

A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages...

There are non on the game board.

That is a pretty strong argument that you cannot really go around without "identity death", even with a Rosatrice theory.

That would be disaster for Umineko in general, because all 17 humans would have alibies, yet a humanbeing killed Nanjo. That would be a logic error. But let's wait for the context and the translation.

How did George kill Rosa and Maria when he was with the cousins and/or Shannon?

How did George kill Hideyoshi, Kyrie and Rudolph in the mansion and sneak back inside?

Was he under Battler's supervision all the time?

So it would be Georgetrice and not Rosatrice?

It should be RosaGeorgetrice, but is don't sound good.

so if she kills Eva she will have to answer to that at one point or the other

Answer for what? Eva would simply dissapear. What connection does that have for Rosa?
Also, why did Eva escape to Kuwadorian before 12:00? How did she know the path? If Rosa was Beatrice and told her all that like in the 7th game ????, it would answer all those questions.

But then this begs the question, what is the reason for putting this into the narrative if it is a lie.

To show things that are the same in all fragments?

If Rosa is the beatrice refered by bern, isn't she going against the red about keeping promises?

I don't follow you. What promisses did Rosa break?

shannon contradictory with the red?

It would be helpful if you would attach the contradictoty red truth.

It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used.
This hits Rosatrice but not the generally accepted theory.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=682797

[Leafsnail]

That thread seems to come to the conclusion that no such drugs exist. Even if they did, I think it would still be a Knox violation if the drug was "unknown" in the story.

In other words, I think the universal application of Knox's rules only presents a problem for your theory.

[jTiKey]

To Pocuma:

And I always thought of the George-kills-Evatrice scene as metaphorical of how he was basically ready to disown her if she kept trying to interfere with his life anymore.

There can be many interpretations, but it showes his character. He chouse Eva by himself. But yeah, he didn't kill her in that game.

That’s a debate that is probably never going to be settled.

Erm, even on wikia, it is confirmed that Lion is a male.

Sorry, but I just found your example in this case hilarious. xD

I'll edit my statement:
"Show be just one Sherlock Holms or other classic mystery novel story, where naming somebody "dead", would let the posibility to see that named body's alive again"

Battler brings up the concept of multiple personalities/personas

Battler did many ridicilous argument >_<

those truths that are general/character related.

Do you want the human characters to use "in this game"? I don't aknowledge purple turth anyway.

if you can’t figure it out on your own

The thing is, you can't give the ability ir knowledge of solving a riddle. You can try showing how it is done, but it's up to the person, if he\she will actually succseed.

it might be easier if we made some kind of list of what we actually want answered, and then try to answer them like that. Because a lot of times it’s hard to tell what’s actually been answered.

Maybe they are just not satisfied with them.

Perhaps everyone should take a breath and try to start over this? Maybe it would be easier if we made a list of questions and when from there? You asked about ep3 correct? And I believe someone quoted some old questions regarding Rosatrice a bit back, how about looking at that one?

that would be nice. And yes, EP3.

My only problem there is that with that logic, anyone who’s suspected to be Beatrice could be assign with a similar goal with the same reasoning…

Isn't that the point of a mystery novel, so you would need deduction to find the culprit?

The “And if you needed to hear the confession of the culprit to solve the mystery - you failed” part made it sound like you implied that I was stupid.

I wasn't refering to you, but to a mystery novel reader in general. and there is nothing wrong about failing solving a mystery >_<

while I cannot find anything that would actually confirm Rosatrice anywhere. That’s why I have some trouble with Rosatrice.

game 2 makes Rosa very suspicius.
But anyway, a confirmation in white text, doesn't make the unconfirmation in Red negated.
Even if Rosatrice didn't have white confirmation. It doesn't have Red Truth conflicts.

I don’t really think ShKanontrice is a copy/paste answer either to be honest…

Would everybody reading EP7 assume that Shannon is the cuplrit? Isn't EP7 the only reason why so many people believe in Shkanon?

I thought this was about the Prime-culprit… As in what actually happened on the so called Rokkenjima-prime.

Rosatrice cares only about the Prime-culprit

Once again, no offence intended on my part, just a tip that might be good to keep in mind.

thank you. I will use this.

[Higurashi-Z]

Quote:
Battler is saying that there are two kinds of red truth:
Things which are true only on a specific board; and
Things which are generally true.
That is your partial interpretation, and not what Battler said.
He divides red truth into only 2 kind, which he specifies:
1) Death, scenes and alibies which are true only on a specific board; and
2) Other's, which are general.

Dive and Knox aren't "death, scenes and alibies."

O_O.WHAT?! You are just trying to understand it as is convenient for you... Anyway I found the raw version in japanese and is more clear. Sorry the picture is really big but I couldn't find smaller...

Spoiler for picture:

There are non on the game board.

Wait are we really talking about ryu-chan here? He is the master in writting long uselles passages . For example all the love talk between most of the characters... Manly Jessica and Kannon. It's uselles for the mystery and is more some aditional information but is long... really long. It could way shorter than was.There are a lot of long passages in umineko who could be changed.

I don't follow you. What promisses did Rosa break?

With maria. I don't have the passage now but there is one scene on episode 4 where Rosa promissed to do something with maria but she called sometime after to say that she had work to do. And is high implicit that this happened a lot of times between maria and Rosa

[Leafsnail]

The Beatrice personality does keep her promises. Rosa created it partly to help Maria trust her again, afterall.

[jTiKey]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

That thread seems to come to the conclusion that no such drugs exist. Even if they did, I think it would still be a Knox violation if the drug was "unknown" in the story.

In other words, I think the universal application of Knox's rules only presents a problem for your theory.

No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used,

Unknown = unknown in general, for the human race.

Knox 8 alreasy prohibits using ungiven clues for solving.

If you don't trust me, go to a mystery novel forum and ask people there to explane Knox and Dine to you.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jTiKey

That is your partial interpretation, and not what Battler said.
He divides red truth into only 2 kind, which he specifies:
1) Death, scenes and alibies which are true only on a specific board; and
2) Other's, which are general.

Dive and Knox aren't "death, scenes and alibies."

That is not what Battler says there....

He is not saying "anything that is x is board-specific, and everything else is general." That is not possible to derive from the context of his monologue. He is saying "some things are board-specific, such as a b and c; some things are general, such as x y and z." There may be some red truth of the form k which is not a/b/c or x/y/z; since Battler didn't address whether k is board-specific or general, we can't know for sure, and would need context to determine what it appears to be (and even then we can't be positive).

In this example, a/b/c are death status/alibis/locations, x/y/z are character personalities/backstory, and k is the Knox Decalogue. It's not in either of those two categories, so we can't say for certain that it's in one or the other. We can, however, look at context to determine that it probably is similar in form to a/b/c, because it appears that its applicability is an intended question as of Episode 5, where Battler wonders whether a game that is not Knox-compliant is still solvable.

This isn't a matter up for interpretation or debate. You are simply incorrect in your reading.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

But it is TOLD in RED. The red is truth no matter WHO uses it.

It is true that the rule exists. However, we already know that the applicability of a rule can vary. Since you are incorrect in your baseless reasoning that Knox is applicable everywhere, and have ignored my point that there are places where Umineko cannot be Van Dine compliant, you must accept that rule applicability is the prerogative of the Game Master. And Beatrice not only didn't say she was compliant with Knox, but not even Virgilia - her mentor and close confidant - knew whether her game was so compliant. That is solid proof against being able to say with certainty that it applies. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying arguing that it contradicts Knox is not proof that a solution is wrong, because it has not been established that contradicting Knox is even something that matters.

Remember, people had to make statements like "this applies to all games." Why should they need to do that if red isn't conditional? Because some red is game-specific, and there aren't hard and fast rules for every single red truth.

[GoldenLand]

Originally Posted by jTiKey

So, I own an apology to all who was offended by my posts.

No worries. I thought you were trolling before, but if you're here to genuinely discuss theories then that's a different matter and you're quite welcome here.

I have a lot of questions about Rosatrice theory, specifically the ones of Renall's that were quoted a few pages back, and the question about how you can explain the ep 8 manga's confirmation of ShKanon, but I'll put those aside for a moment to ask the one I'm most curious about currently.

How does Rosatrice explain the part of ep 6 where the solution to the closed room Battler was locked into was described as revealing Beatrice's heart, the greatest riddle of the tale, a move that could not be used again, that was the same thing as killing Beatrice? That means it's the most vital part of the story. ShKanontrice theory would explain it as the point where ShKanon became confirmed. But under Rosatrice theory, what correspondingly vital point is revealed?

"..................No, one move does exist. ......However, that move.........is one that can never be used again. .....And, ...it is also a part of Beato's heart."

"You mean...one of the greatest riddles of this tale...?"

"Precisely. ......By using that, or possibly......"

Featherine sighed deeply.
......It was something she hadn't done at all before now.
.........I see.

......So, as long as this tale has been, ......it is finally time for the curtain to close...

Revealing this riddle......means the same as finally.........killing Beato.
......Battler......is probably the only one qualified to do that.

If he weaves that tale as the Game Master...
......No one will be able to stop it now...

The greatest riddle of this tale......will probably......be revealed.........very soon......

The vital reds there appear to be

"Kanon does not exist in the guest room. .........Of course, this includes all parts of the closet, the bedroom, and the bathroom."

and

"Even if you do join us- there are 17 people."

We know that the things revealed then are incredibly important. Why are they important under Rosatrice theory?

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Erm, even on wikia, it is confirmed that Lion is a male.

No, that is untrue. If you look at the Umineko wiki, you will see that it says that Lion's gender is unknown, but implied to be male.

[Higurashi-Z]

The image that I posted before wasn't going but now I edited so you can go and see for yourself.

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

The Beatrice personality does keep her promises. Rosa created it partly to help Maria trust her again, afterall.

Rosa have multiple personalities? I thought that it was against the rosatrice theory.

[Golden Bug-Hunter]

Given that the full sentence of the Battler quote is 'Since I created this gameboard, I can decleare that The family was getting along fine' I think the context makes it pretty obvious that this is a game-board specific red.

After all, what kind of lunatic could read through the first five games and decide that the portrayal of the family in them was them 'Getting along fine'? Clearly, some sense and discretion needs to be used when sorting out whether a red is board specific or universal, especially with things that aren't specifically assigned a category.

Which means whether the Knox and Van Dine rules are universal or specific to the boards where they were announced is a valid area for debate. I would suggest that since a 'real' world is not guaranteed to be a mystery story, that pretty obviously limits the rules right there.

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by Higurashi-Z

Rosa have multiple personalities? I thought that it was against the rosatrice theory.

I'm just saying that Beatrice's red text about keeping promises doesn't really contradict Rosatrice. Well, unless you're refusing to accept that named personalities are A Thing in Umineko.

[Higurashi-Z]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

I'm just saying that Beatrice's red text about keeping promises doesn't really contradict Rosatrice. Well, unless you're refusing to accept that named personalities are A Thing in Umineko.

I always thought that this was the point of rosatrice theory... the manly argument that most rosatrice followers say is that "multiple identities is a dumb thing and don't exist in true mystery story"... I won't say that you can't( I think that it's a really forced interpretation anyway) but I would say that it's fundamentally going against the entire idea of the theory, at least the theory of KNM...

Still, jTiKey I would like to know if you agree with Leafsnail answer.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Golden Bug-Hunter

Which means whether the Knox and Van Dine rules are universal or specific to the boards where they were announced is a valid area for debate. I would suggest that since a 'real' world is not guaranteed to be a mystery story, that pretty obviously limits the rules right there.

Even then, a "mystery story" doesn't have to conform to the rules. Dlanor outright says this in the bit I posted on the last page. She and Battler even agree that it's a bit arrogant to say that only Knox-compliant mysteries are "solvable," and that the people who insist upon orthodoxy can become fanatics.

Since Umineko features multiple different stories by multiple different Game Masters, we not only can debate whether the rules apply but must also question which games they apply to. For example, can we really say whether Van Dine's rules were intended to apply to any game prior to Will appearing? He's mentioned like once before his appearance, in a TIP. And he doesn't even throw out a full list of his rules, and doesn't state the ones he does provide entirely in red.

"Was Beatrice Knox-compliant?" completely misses the point of that discussion in ep5, in the end. The point is that Battler is getting at the question of solvability and whether Beatrice's game could be solved. He seeks assurance from simple, monolithic rules, but he can't get it because nobody but Beatrice knows whether she intended to even obey those rules. The very embodiment of those rules concedes that her rules aren't everything. The point is that Battler can't know the work is solvable, but has faith that he can solve it because he believes that Beato wanted him to. Which he does.

If anything this suggests to me that Beatrice wasn't Knox-compliant (at least by assertion; depending upon your reading maybe she was compliant by happenstance), because the point was that solving it was reliant upon Battler realizing why he should trust her.

[Leafsnail]

My Rosatrice variant is trying to follow the later episodes as closely as possible, and I can't see any way of doing that without multiple personas. In any case, I think it's easier to accept for Rosa considering that Maria seems to directly treat her as having multiple personalities.

e: as closely as possible after starting from a ridiculous premise