[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni - Overall Game Impressions

[Chron]

Originally Posted by naikou

Everyone did miss the point, everyone was supposed to miss the point - in the beginning. Ryukishi set up us as detectives trying to combat the evil witch and solve the murder. He set us up with that line of thinking, so that he could show us how it is wrong in later episodes.

Later on, you are supposed to realize that there is no evil witch to combat, just a sad, mentally deranged girl, and that cruelly seeking the truth regardless of its consequences is actually not a good thing.

So if you're still trying to find the culprit, then you have missed the point of Umineko entirely. It's not about blaming someone, it's about understanding someone.

Here's your problem:

Why should we give a damn? No, really. Why should we? Most of us hate Ange, who was supposed to be the vehicle for understanding "Ryuukishi's true point". Doesn't that indicate to you just how much Ryuukishi failed to deliver his own message? I've personally experienced a lot of loss in my life, I've had my share of tragedies, and they impacted my life rather negatively, and I know I'm not the only one who's read this story that has had such an experience.

I look on Ange with contempt, because I see her for what she is: A badly written sob story that's clearly designed to provoke feelings of remorse/sadness/bullcrap/craving for McDonald's(a la Pizza Hut). Ryuukishi spent four years trying to set up his readers to "learn how to let things go"...No shit.

That's his message. Something that shallow. Something so obvious, that he had to shoehorn in a completely unsympathetic character into an otherwise good story in order to preach his moral truth as if it were some amazing revelation.

Well it's not. Those that don't it already will get it wrong, and those that do need it already know it, so it doesn't help them. And besides, Anno did it better back in the Nineties. Honestly, no matter what you hold Umineko up for, the fact is that someone else did it better already. You can say that's not fair to Ryuukishi, well...That's too damn bad. He lead people on a wild goose chase, so his work deserves it's time under the microscope. He doesn't get a free pass.

How could I possibly prove that to you, and why do you care?


You insinuate that I am a mindless Ryukishi who would worship Umineko regardless of its actual content? I say that I would not; there were many things about Umineko which I did not like (the beginning of EP2, the magic battles in EP3, the love trial in EP6).

But if you demand proof that I actually have a brain, well... I cannot prove that to you, I'm sorry. Feel free to ignore me if you find my opinions so worthless.

You're claiming their opinion is invalid on the basis of their own shortsightedness, and criticizing "[their] inability to get the point." Jan-Poo gets the point. We just happen to think the point was stupid for all the buildup Ryuukishi put into it.

Brevity is king. And Ryuukishi spent four years saying nothing of any real worth in his story. That would be all fine and good if this were just a fantasy story, but Ryuukishi is using it as a soapbox, and frankly his message is deeply underwhelming.

The author is dead is apt in this case, as we readers assign more worth in the characters and world Ryuukishi built than the man himself put into it.

Well, don't forgive, then. Just move on. There are more important things in life than finding blame.

No shit.

[Sherringford]

For the record I got a paper due in 58 minutes so can someone try to roleplay as me so I feel like I'm not missing anything while I'm working on it?

[Chron]

I'd leave that to Renall, he's the only one with enough wit.

I can try to help out with the negative comparisons to the mystery genre, so it'll be more of a role-play by committee. Have fun!

[naikou]

Originally Posted by Renall

You are blind to the injustice which may have existed. You are allowing evil to succeed (well, not exactly as you can't influence the novel's world, but your position is morally reprehensible). Doesn't exactly make you any better.

There is no purpose in condemning an evil which is already beyond our reach, which will help no one if revealed, and which may actually hurt some people if pursued.

If there were a way to prevent what happened on Rokkenjima? Then simply moving on would be a terrible thing. Since there is nothing which can change what has already happened, and everyone involved is already long gone? Moving on (and forgiving) is the best thing to do.

Originally Posted by Renall

Okay, then evil won in Umineko. Evil. Won. And nobody cares because Beatrice and Battler were too selfish, because Eva was too selfish, because Ange was too selfish. Because no one actually cares about anyone but themselves. You ever notice how selfish and possessive so much of the "love" in Umineko is? Hell, Yasu's love for Battler seems almost hopelessly selfish. The only person who loved unconditionally was Maria and we all see where that got her.

The point is that there never was an evil which could win - there were only humans, with human flaws. Are some of them greedy and selfish? Yes. That's the way humans are. But every single one of them also had some good in them, and that is why it is a tragedy that they died.

You say "Evil won", I say "It was a tragic situation where good intentions went wrong."

[Renall]

Originally Posted by naikou

There is no purpose in condemning an evil which is already beyond our reach, which will help no one if revealed, and which may actually hurt some people if pursued.

If there were a way to prevent what happened on Rokkenjima? Then simply moving on would be a terrible thing. Since there is nothing which can change what has already happened, and everyone involved is already long gone? Moving on (and forgiving) is the best thing to do.

So if I murder someone you love, you're forbidden from wanting me to be condemned for it because "nothing can change what has already happened?" Please reconsider your own moral stance, as it is incoherent and reprehensible.

And again: Ange is not the only person who exists. She's being selfish if she only cares about the impact the disaster had on her, and if you only care about her, then Ryukishi failed to properly morally educate you in the context of his own work.

The point is that there never was an evil which could win - there were only humans, with human flaws. Are some of them greedy and selfish? Yes. That's the way humans are. But every single one of them also had some good in them, and that is why it is a tragedy that they died.

You say "Evil won", I say "It was a tragic situation where good intentions went wrong."

Of course you would say that, you're an apologist for evil. "Good intentions went wrong" is true and tragic if it was an accident. If anyone caused this state of affairs deliberately, it was an act of evil and choosing to ignore it supports the victory of evil. And even if it was an accident, the victims have the right to be free of speculation that they may be criminals. Either way, the truth stands with me and in opposition to your malformed point.

I sincerely hope you do not actually hold the moral beliefs your statements appear to support. You have a depressingly cavalier attitude toward malfeasance and evil.

[Chron]

Originally Posted by naikou

There is no purpose in condemning an evil which is already beyond our reach, which will help no one if revealed, and which may actually hurt some people if pursued.

If there were a way to prevent what happened on Rokkenjima? Then simply moving on would be a terrible thing. Since there is nothing which can change what has already happened, and everyone involved is already long gone? Moving on (and forgiving) is the best thing to do.

I'll give you fair warning, this one time:

If you want to get into armchair philosophizing and sophistry, you're about to enter an arena where you simply can not win. If you're going to argue moral ambiguity you will see the error of your ways put in front of you. It's all well and good that you're confident that you're right but you're not. We'll show you, Renall with an air of stating the obvious, and myself with a sadistic air of superiority. If you'd like to avoid the obvious conclusion and just step away from this absurd argument, then you'll save us all a lot of time.

The point is that there never was an evil which could win - there were only humans, with human flaws. Are some of them greedy and selfish? Yes. That's the way humans are. But every single one of them also had some good in them, and that is why it is a tragedy that they died.

There is no evil in the world? How do you explain the situation in Libya, then? How else do you explain the murder of innocent civilians protesting for their own self-perceived rights, which sparked a revolution only after the fact, as anything other than megalomania and evil? You really can't. There are some things which are simply evil. Unforgivable. Undestanding? Sure, but that doesn't give anyone a pass. There is no redemption for some acts. Does the good in a man's soul excuse him of the evil he has done in spite of the knowledge of good and evil? If anything, it only serves to condemn him more because he knew the difference.

You say "Evil won", I say "It was a tragic situation where good intentions went wrong."

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It does not excuse evil, because those who commit evil acts do not do so in ignorance of right and wrong. They simply commit evil in spite of the fact that they know the difference.

When Evil goes unpunished, it has won. Because that is what it means for Evil to win, to commit evil without consequence, to reap only the reward, and receive no punishment for the harm it has done to the innocent, for it would not be evil if there were no innocents harmed. Say what you like, but Maria was innocent. No matter who committed what on Rokkenjimma, killing someone as innocent as Maria was an act of evil, by definition.

[cmos]

Originally Posted by Renall

So if I murder someone you love, you're forbidden from wanting me to be condemned for it because "nothing can change what has already happened?"

If you're already dead, sure. It won't serve any good to blame you.

On the contrary, it's your desire to condemn long dead people, that did something bad in the past, is the evilest thing in the world, that causes mutual hatred and eternal wars.
Please reconsider your own moral stance.

[Chron]

Originally Posted by cmos

If you're already dead, sure. It won't serve any good to blame you.

On the contrary, it's your desire to condemn long dead people, that did something bad in the past, is the evilest thing in the world, that causes mutual hatred and eternal wars.
Please reconsider your own moral stance.

I blame Hitler and the SS for the genocide of millions. I blame Stalin for murdering millions of his own subjects.

What wars have been fought in order to defend their honor?

Bahahahaha. Really.

There's nothing reprehensible for refusing to forgive long dead people for their unforgivable crimes. If they received no blame, no punishment for their crimes, then there is really no reason to forgive them, as there was no justice in it. Their victims simply became victims, tragic victims, and their murderers? They got away with it.

It doesn't matter how many innocent lives you took. Be it the one murderer taking 15 lives on Rokkenjimma, or someone ordering a genocide. All lives are equally precious. Taking innocent lives is equally reprehensible, no matter how few or how many you extinguish.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by cmos

If you're already dead, sure. It won't serve any good to blame you.

On the contrary, it's your desire to condemn long dead people, that did something bad in the past, is the evilest thing in the world, that causes mutual hatred and eternal wars.
Please reconsider your own moral stance.

I'm sorry, but you're just being silly here to even suggest there is any comparison whatsoever.

The goal is not to perpetuate hate, but to affect truth and in so doing assure justice. That you are incapable of even distinguishing the two is troubling, but I've noticed this seems to be a very popular stance among the internet.

It's intensely selfish to think the sole purpose of blaming the culprit is to somehow make them feel bad.

[naikou]

Originally Posted by Renall

So if I murder someone you love, you're forbidden from wanting me to be condemned for it because "nothing can change what has already happened?" Please reconsider your own moral stance, as it is incoherent and reprehensible.

No one is forbidden from anything. But I do think it would be better to try and understand the murderer, and why s/he is the way they are, rather than simply condemning them as "evil". Mutual and understanding and tolerance are better than hatred, even justified hatred.

Whom do you respect more: the man who forgives the person who killed his wife? Or the man who hunts the killer down and blows his brains out with a shotgun?

I respect the former far more.

Originally Posted by Renall

And again: Ange is not the only person who exists. She's being selfish if she only cares about the impact the disaster had on her, and if you only care about her, then Ryukishi failed to properly morally educate you in the context of his own work.Of course you would say that, you're an apologist for evil. "Good intentions went wrong" is true and tragic if it was an accident. If anyone caused this state of affairs deliberately, it was an act of evil and choosing to ignore it supports the victory of evil. And even if it was an accident, the victims have the right to be free of speculation that they may be criminals. Either way, the truth stands with me and in opposition to your malformed point.

Everyone else is dead, what difference do the events make to them?

Evil had already won, evil wins at the beginning of every mystery novel. The purpose of the mystery is to deliver some justice to the culprits to prevent some future tragedy from occurring again at the hands of those same culprits, not to prevent evil from "winning". In Umineko, there are no culprits left, and hence, no reason to know the truth.

Please explain to me: what good would knowing the truth do for anyone living? Protecting the reputations of the dead is not something I am concerned about; they are dead and do not care.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by naikou

Whom do you respect more: the man who forgives the person who killed his wife? Or the man who hunts the killer down and blows his brains out with a shotgun?

I respect the former far more.

You're creating a completely disingenous false dichotomy here. It's perfectly within a man's right to forgive whoever killed his wife... but that man must still face justice. There's a reason the state, not the victims, prosecute crimes. You are committing an offense against more than just the victim.

Everyone else is dead, what difference do the events make to them?

How myopic. I wasn't aware Captain Kawabata, Okonogi, Kasumi, the surviving relatives of all of the servants and Dr. Nanjo, the students at Fukuin, the police, people Maria and Jessica and Battler went to school with, Asumu's family, the police, and anyone casually interested in justice being done for the deceased were all dead.

Evil had already won, evil wins at the beginning of every mystery novel. The purpose of the mystery is to deliver some justice to the culprits to prevent some future tragedy from occurring again at the hands of those same culprits, not to prevent evil from "winning". In Umineko, there are no culprits left, and hence, no reason to know the truth.

No. Evil doesn't win in a mystery story precisely because the wheels of the genre turn to bring light to what would otherwise be lost to justice. Evil only wins when the culprit gets away with it for good.

Please explain to me: what good would knowing the truth do for anyone living? Protecting the reputations of the dead is not something I am concerned about; they are dead and do not care.

Again, some people may do better to know the truth, and that aside, protecting and upholding truth is morally right. It's the right thing to do.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course you would say that, you're an apologist for evil.

Not that I agree with what is being said on either side here, but this borders on ad hominem. Why don't we just call each other 'Criminals Against Humanity' or 'Judge Dredd' and really make this board nasty again?

I don't mean to pick on you, Renall; you're just the last person to post.

But ultimately, the devil himself can argue for good and a saint can argue for evil. It's irrelevant who makes the argument; only the argument itself.


As for whether this is truly evil itself, I'd like to understand how the written Umineko episodes in Rokkenjima prime, not being solvable, represents evil. Perhaps you mean to say that the evil is in Battler and Ange not being forthcoming with what they know (if it is a murder) in Rokkenjima Prime itself?

But couldn't it just have been an accident instead? Despite all of Beatrice's written machinations, could Rokkenjima Prime have just been 'oops, Gouda set off the bomb?' I can believe Ange would be destroyed for holding her hate in this year only in the end to find out no one really did anything... Rokkenjima Prime, that is. And I can believe that Beatrice played up the incident as a crime when it really wasn't. (Especially since the police declared that it was just an 'incident.')

[Chron]

The dead do not care if their murderer is brought to justice?

But what of their loved ones? Those that mourn their passing? The living who want answers to a terrible tragedy that has befallen them as well? And that's not even taking into account the possibility of an afterlife.

Whom do you respect more: the man who forgives the person who killed his wife? Or the man who hunts the killer down and blows his brains out with a shotgun?

I respect the former far more.

I respect the latter, who after blowing out the man's brains, wipes himself off and goes "Now you're forgiven."

Do you know why Lady Justice's eyes are blindfolded and she holds scales? Justice is not about "good and evil", it is about "Balance", a punishment to fit the crime that has been committed. Justice is not about forgiveness, Justice is an eye for an eye. A life for a life. Some people believe that death is the best way of balancing the scales in some cases, and others think that reforming and making the murderer live a hollow life with the guilt and shame causing them to suffer the rest of their lives balances the scales.

But justice is about punishment. Penalization. Not forgiveness. Justice demands the scales be balanced, the criminal be punished, that is the entire point. Knowing the truth allows the scales to be balanced, it allows the murderer to be punished, if in life, and in death, by bringing resolution to who exactly was responsible.

You're wrong about mystery novels by the way, and belie your own ignorance: In a mystery novel, evil never wins. Evil manifests when the murder is committed, but Evil is defeated the moment the detective outs them, and they receive their just punishment. Murder on the Orient express, and Then There Were None are exceptions, as they are stories of how evil is punished.

Oh, as for the living? Catharsis is a wonderful thing.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

Not that I agree with what is being said on either side here, but this borders on ad hominem. Why don't we just call each other 'Criminals Against Humanity' or 'Judge Dredd' and really make this board nasty again?

I don't mean to pick on you, Renall; you're just the last person to post.

But ultimately, the devil himself can argue for good and a saint can argue for evil. It's irrelevant who makes the argument; only the argument itself.

Yes, and the argument itself was "allowing evil to win is okay because it's too late to care."

That makes him an apologist for evil, just as I said. I am not attacking his argument solely on the basis of his moral character; I am concluding that his argument demonstrates that he lacks moral character. And I stand by it, as I find his opinion to be incredibly offensive, but nobody sheds a tear for me over that.

[naikou]

Originally Posted by Renall

You're creating a completely disingenous false dichotomy here. It's perfectly within a man's right to forgive whoever killed his wife... but that man must still face justice. There's a reason the state, not the victims, prosecute crimes. You are committing an offense against more than just the victim.

Agreed. But from the perspective of the victim, it is still better to forgive than to condemn (not mandatory - just better). One can still let justice do its work, and forgive.

Originally Posted by Renall

No. Evil doesn't win in a mystery story precisely because the wheels of the genre turn to bring light to what would otherwise be lost to justice.
Evil only wins when the culprit gets away with it for good.

What justice can be dispensed in Umineko has already been dispensed. The culprit, whomever they are, is dead. Nothing here on earth can be done which will affect them even slightly.

Originally Posted by Renall

Again, some people may do better to know the truth, and that aside, protecting and upholding truth is morally right. It's the right thing to do.

You speak in absolutes. Pursuing the truth is not always necessary, nor always right.

Hypothetical: A man has just murdered the leader of a prominent gang, and died in the attempt. However, the gang members never discovered his identity. If they do, they will murder his wife and children.

Should the truth be revealed?

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes, and the argument itself was "allowing evil to win is okay because it's too late to care."

That makes him an apologist for evil, just as I said. I am not attacking his argument solely on the basis of his moral character; I am concluding that his argument demonstrates that he lacks moral character. And I stand by it, as I find his opinion to be incredibly offensive, but nobody sheds a tear for me over that.

Maybe we've gone away from talking about Umineko and into philosophy in general after these last few pages then...


I'd have to partially agree here, but to clarify it as not doing anything to stand up to evil is evil in of itself...

Incidently, I think this is what Beatrice may consider her sin to be; that she knew everything that was going on but couldn't stop it? In this case, she is not the true culprit as defined in usual detective fiction but bears some culpability...

[Chron]

Originally Posted by naikou

Agreed. But from the perspective of the victim, it is still better to forgive than to condemn (not mandatory - just better). One can still let justice do its work, and forgive.

Sure, but justice must come first. You spent this entire time arguing about the irrelevance and "evil" of justice, which simply doesn't fly.

What justice can be dispensed in Umineko has already been dispensed. The culprit, whomever they are, is dead. Nothing here on earth can be done which will affect them even slightly.

Closure for the still living victims of the Rokkenjimma massacre.

You speak in absolutes. Pursuing the truth is not always necessary, nor always right.

That doesn't mean it never is.

Hypothetical: A man has just murdered the leader of a prominent gang, and died in the attempt. However, the gang members never discovered his identity. If they do, they will murder his wife and children.

Should the truth be revealed?

That depends entirely on the circumstances. Moral grey areas are things that are highly dependant on the context, something that vague doesn't really invite a knee-jerk, all-encompassing judgement.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by naikou

What justice can be dispensed in Umineko has already been dispensed. The culprit, whomever they are, is dead. Nothing here on earth can be done which will affect them even slightly.

You are, quite simply, wrong. Their memory can be affected, and should be.

You speak in absolutes. Pursuing the truth is not always necessary, nor always right.

It is.

Hypothetical: A man has just murdered the leader of a prominent gang, and died in the attempt. However, the gang members never discovered his identity. If they do, they will murder his wife and children.

Should the truth be revealed?

Yes, once the man's family is safely in witness protection, as justice necessitates that information be available to the prosecution of the other gang members. Oh, do I not get to pick the sensible option in your ridiculous hypothetical? Well, too bad.

[naikou]

Originally Posted by Renall

You are, quite simply, wrong. Their memory can be affected, and should be.

I don't see why it "should" be? Who says it should be?

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes, once the man's family is safely in witness protection, as justice necessitates that information be available to the prosecution of the other gang members. Oh, do I not get to pick the sensible option in your ridiculous hypothetical? Well, too bad.

Do you not see the purpose behind my hypothetical, though? There are situations where revealing the truth can only lead to bad consequences. It is not an absolute that "The truth must be revealed!"

[Chron]

Originally Posted by naikou

I don't see why it "should" be? Who says it should be?

Do you not see the purpose behind my hypothetical, though? There are situations where revealing the truth can only lead to bad consequences. It is not an absolute that "The truth must be revealed!"

I don't know. I think that Renall's answer covered the "bad consequences" bit. Not to mention your "consequence" is a result of evil lashing out, rather than some kind of nebulous unpreventable reaction to events.

You need better arguments. You havn't even answered mine, and frankly I think my points are much easier to rebut that Renall's common sense ones.

As for why a villain's memory should be reviled after their death? Because it provides closure to the still living victims of the villains crime. Sometimes they need it in order to move on.

Ange did read Eva's diary before deciding to move on with her life, after all. You're arguing against even that much, which is much worse than even what Ryuukishi put forth. That's funny, in a way.