[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[unsuspectingvisitor]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

So what exactly are the roles of the "Gamemaster" and "Player" in shaping the "Gameboard"? That's ultimately what I'm trying to get at here.

Battler said something about his role of being a gamemaster in EP6. I'll quote " My role isn't to carry out serial murders. It's to use that process to show you closed rooms that are impossible without magic, and thereby achieve victory for the witch side."

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Of course. What I'm trying to understand is how the "truth that people want" finds it's way onto the gameboard.

Of course I've already suggested that it does through reader interpretation when we were discussing Erika's mistake. But the source of these conclusions of Battler's have to be more than just being fooled by the wordplay of a written statement like "Everyone on the island is in the parlor."

So what exactly are the roles of the "Gamemaster" and "Player" in shaping the "Gameboard"? That's ultimately what I'm trying to get at here.

Think of the Gameboard as a set chess game. In set chess games, all the pieces are arranged in an order and its your job to get the king. In Umineko, there is no "king" per se rather your own decisions and conclusions shape the outcome. Even moreso, the Game Master has adjust the game according to the your actions. So the role of the Game Master is to make game, the role of the player is to shape it. This rule applies to basically every game and it reaches its full manifestation in EP6 where the game is complete halted thanks to Erika and Bern's tactics.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The gamemaster shapes everything. In both cases you're instancing, though, the player is falling for the most obvious, fallacious "Truth" being presented. Beatrice was going to show off her magic friends regardless; Eva was going to shoot Battler regardless. It is a THEMATIC consequence, not a CAUSAL one.

That's quite iffy... What if Battler never reached the conclusion that Eva was the culprit and said it was Kyrie instead? Why would Beatrice make it so that only Eva would be the one to shoot, especially since her reason for doing so is because Battler reached the conclusion that she did so? Same thing for the end of Turn and every other game, so no consequence is thematic unless Beatrice just knew that Battler would make those decisions regardless.

[AuraTwilight]

That's quite iffy... What if Battler never reached the conclusion that Eva was the culprit and said it was Kyrie instead? Why would Beatrice make it so that only Eva would be the one to shoot, especially since her reason for doing so is because Battler reached the conclusion that she did so? Same thing for the end of Turn and every other game, so no consequence is thematic unless Beatrice just knew that Battler would make those decisions regardless.

Well, for starters, even the TIPS of that episode says that Eva shot Battler because he was the only living person and thus the culprit in her mind. I'm not at all saying that Battler's beliefs "change" the ending. I'm saying Ryukishi had a sequence of coincidences in order to deliver his aesop in question.

To say nothing of Eva being chosen because she's the survivor. That's sort of out of Beatrice's hands.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, for starters, even the TIPS of that episode says that Eva shot Battler because he was the only living person and thus the culprit in her mind.

Well that's one heck of a cause for contradiction and mental dissonance, though I don't remember it ever mentioning her reasonings for shooting, it just said that Battler died by being shot to death then mentioned that Jessica was blind and that it was some kind of Wolf and Sheep Puzzle.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm not at all saying that Battler's beliefs "change" the ending. I'm saying Ryukishi had a sequence of coincidences in order to deliver his aesop in question.

To say nothing of Eva being chosen because she's the survivor. That's sort of out of Beatrice's hands.

I never said you did, in fact I assumed you were saying the opposite. Besides, we all know it was Ryukishi's little scheme, heck it has to be, but we're talking about in the fiction level, in terms of the Gameboard.

[AuraTwilight]

Well that's one heck of a cause for contradiction and mental dissonance, though I don't remember it ever mentioning her reasonings for shooting, it just said that Battler died by being shot to death then mentioned that Jessica was blind and that it was some kind of Wolf and Sheep Puzzle.

The Wolf and Sheep Puzzle is a callback to Rosa in the second episode; she reasoned that since she and Maria were sheep, the last one(s) standing besides themselves was a Wolf.

I never said you did, in fact I assumed you were saying the opposite. Besides, we all know it was Ryukishi's little scheme, heck it has to be, but we're talking about in the fiction level, in terms of the Gameboard.

The way I'm seeing it, Beatrice was trying to show a low-level, plaintext truth that we're supposed to discard ("Wait, it can't be Eva because..."), but Battler KEPT FALLING FOR IT because he keeps mistaking his goal.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The gamemaster shapes everything. In both cases you're instancing, though, the player is falling for the most obvious, fallacious "Truth" being presented. Beatrice was going to show off her magic friends regardless; Eva was going to shoot Battler regardless. It is a THEMATIC consequence, not a CAUSAL one.

But if Beatrice unilaterally shaped everything and was going to do those things from the beginning then Battler's conclusions weren't even fallacious.

Originally Posted by Renall

It's a bit presumptive on the part of the author to show you a bunch of stuff intentionally designed to make you draw a conclusion (even though I don't think most people after ep2 just gave up) and claim it's "what you'd be thinking of" before the community has even drawn that conclusion.

I mean, it's kind of obvious, but it's also kind of pointless. If you show me that Battler has three arms, I guess I might conclude he has three arms, but for that to suddenly turn out to be wrong isn't exactly my failing as a reader. Especially if, in the end, it turns out I actually didn't believe that at the time I read it. Which is something the author won't know until after he's done writing it and people actually review it.

Well, really it's all Battler's conclusion. Battler is kind of a representative of the audience, and sure RK07 is being kind of presumptuous in using Battler as such, but I don't think Battler's reaction to Turn, for example, is a terribly inaccurate guess by RK07. In fact, let's not forget that Land became Banquet because Turn was apparently too hard. In any case, I'm not sure how RK07 could effectively present us a story about how readers interpret stories that also involved audience participation without engaging in at least some presumption. I also don't think he even meant to suggest that you "failed" as a reader if you began to think that magic was the answer after Turn; heck, even Bernkastel criticized Beatrice after Turn for it being too one-sided and unfair of a game.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, for starters, even the TIPS of that episode says that Eva shot Battler because he was the only living person and thus the culprit in her mind.

Battler: "Y..... you're the culprit... Eva oba-san......!!!"
Eva: "*cackle*cackle*cackle*......, ahahahahahaahah!! It took you too long to notice, Battler-kuun!!"
*Eva shoots Battler*

Doesn't really mesh well with those TIPS.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The Wolf and Sheep Puzzle is a callback to Rosa in the second episode; she reasoned that since she and Maria were sheep, the last one(s) standing besides themselves was a Wolf.

I understand that, but it was placed under Battler's TIP and basically implied that Eva was the culprit.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The way I'm seeing it, Beatrice was trying to show a low-level, plaintext truth that we're supposed to discard ("Wait, it can't be Eva because..."), but Battler KEPT FALLING FOR IT because he keeps mistaking his goal.

He didn't really "fall for it," Beatrice gave a red truth that seemingly proved that Eva was the culprit. What he did fall for was Beatrice's act of kindness, which provoked Ange's sudden coming and her having to tell him what his goal was. I wouldn't call it "low- level" or "plaintext" when it directly calls for the disbelief in Eva being culprit and brings in the much harder challenge of trying to figure out who really did it.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Well, really it's all Battler's conclusion. Battler is kind of a representative of the audience, and sure RK07 is being kind of presumptuous in using Battler as such, but I don't think Battler's reaction to Turn, for example, is a terribly inaccurate guess by RK07. In fact, let's not forget that Land became Banquet because Turn was apparently too hard. In any case, I'm not sure how RK07 could effectively present us a story about how readers interpret stories that also involved audience participation without engaging in at least some presumption. I also don't think he even meant to suggest that you "failed" as a reader if you began to think that magic was the answer after Turn; heck, even Bernkastel criticized Beatrice after Turn for it being too one-sided and unfair of a game.

Let's not forget the possibility that Ryukishi07 intended the Meta- World to represent us and him as well. So it would make sense that Battler and Bern would represent and that, in order to bring that kind of feel to the game, he would have to predict what our reactions would be and naturally place those reactions as Battler's own decisions and conclusions. In fact, I remember coming to the conclusion that Ryukishi07 had designed the game specifically for newbies of the mystery genre, so it would make sense that he would be presumptive of our reactions if he knew the mentality of the audience he was drawing in.

[Used Can]

I'm glad to see you guys finally getting into the idea the Meta-Characters are there to count as representation of things.

Anyhow, I've been drowning in my work for a while, is there any word from WH if they're planning on working on Higanbana?

[LyricalAura]

There is already a separate group working on Higanbana here, so I don't think Witch Hunt has any plans regarding it.

[AuraTwilight]

But if Beatrice unilaterally shaped everything and was going to do those things from the beginning then Battler's conclusions weren't even fallacious.

They are because his conclusions are built on faulty logic. It doesn't matter if they're legitimate.

Battler: "Y..... you're the culprit... Eva oba-san......!!!"
Eva: "*cackle*cackle*cackle*......, ahahahahahaahah!! It took you too long to notice, Battler-kuun!!"
*Eva shoots Battler*

Doesn't really mesh well with those TIPS.

It's also past midnight, where it's okay to make Battler flip out and hallucinate and shit.

He didn't really "fall for it," Beatrice gave a red truth that seemingly proved that Eva was the culprit. What he did fall for was Beatrice's act of kindness, which provoked Ange's sudden coming and her having to tell him what his goal was. I wouldn't call it "low- level" or "plaintext" when it directly calls for the disbelief in Eva being culprit and brings in the much harder challenge of trying to figure out who really did it.

Er... I'm saying "Eva did it" is the plaintext, default "truth" Beatrice is trying to trick him into in this instance.

I'm glad to see you guys finally getting into the idea the Meta-Characters are there to count as representation of things.

I wasn't aware that people ever did anything else with interpreting the Meta-World.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

They are because his conclusions are built on faulty logic. It doesn't matter if they're legitimate.

Are you saying that Beatrice anticipated Battler's faulty logic? Or that Battler inevitably had faulty logic because the story was going to end the way it did? Or what?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's also past midnight, where it's okay to make Battler flip out and hallucinate and shit.

Unclear. The last time frame provided in Banquet was at about 6:00 when Krauss and Natsuhi were found dead. In the anime, Eva kills Battler at 11:15.

And if you're going to say that the anime is wrong then I would argue that if it is then 11:15 is later than it should be: There was very little time spent examining Krauss and Natsuhi before Eva ran off to find George and accidentally shoot and blind Jessica; it would mean that Battler was alone with Eva for 4-5 hours before she shot him.

Also, in Turn the clock strikes midnight during Beatrice's celebration. At this point Battler is already being dragged around naked in front of a bunch of goats as Beatrice's "furniture".

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Are you saying that Beatrice anticipated Battler's faulty logic? Or that Battler inevitably had faulty logic because the story was going to end the way it did? Or what?

Well, Battler's logic has to be faulty because of narrative necessity (if he was right about everything, it'd be a pretty short story). I don't think Beatrice anticipated many of Battler's best moments (small bombs), as she seemed genuinely surprised by his... ingenuity... at times. And genuinely disappointed by his failures.

[AuraTwilight]

Are you saying that Beatrice anticipated Battler's faulty logic? Or that Battler inevitably had faulty logic because the story was going to end the way it did? Or what?

What Renall said. I think you're reading way too much between what Beatrice presents and what Battler concludes, because Beatrice is not happy with it whatsoever but as the Gamemaster she is in complete control of basically everything.

Unclear. The last time frame provided in Banquet was at about 6:00 when Krauss and Natsuhi were found dead. In the anime, Eva kills Battler at 11:15.

Lolanime. Either way Eva's apparently snapped at this point, so it doesn't mean she shot anyone besides Battler, anyway.

And if you're going to say that the anime is wrong then I would argue that if it is then 11:15 is later than it should be: There was very little time spent examining Krauss and Natsuhi before Eva ran off to find George and accidentally shoot and blind Jessica; it would mean that Battler was alone with Eva for 4-5 hours before she shot him.

Well, is there any reason they couldn't of spent like four hours together?

Also, in Turn the clock strikes midnight during Beatrice's celebration. At this point Battler is already being dragged around naked in front of a bunch of goats as Beatrice's "furniture".

Battler had already surrendered long before then, though.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Battler had already surrendered long before then, though.

Even still, the game doesn't end until the end of the second day. Until then, he's still the "detective."

[AuraTwilight]

Erika could relinquish her Detective authority before the end of the game, so what's stopping Battler?

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika could relinquish her Detective authority before the end of the game, so what's stopping Battler?

Battler never realized he was the detective in the first place, it was never stated until EP5.

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, so? He GAVE UP on fighting the witch and infact accepted her existence. He stopped fighting for the human side, and you don't think that has consequences?

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yea, so? He GAVE UP on fighting the witch and infact accepted her existence. He stopped fighting for the human side, and you don't think that has consequences?

It does, that's the point of what happened to him after the game had ended. Just because he gave up before doesn't mean anything, the game continues and what he sees is still objective until the end of the game. After that, then all kinds of crap can happen.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

What Renall said. I think you're reading way too much between what Beatrice presents and what Battler concludes, because Beatrice is not happy with it whatsoever but as the Gamemaster she is in complete control of basically everything.

No doubt there is "narrative necessity" in Battler being wrong, but what I am asking is why there is a correlation with Battler's state of mind and what happens on the game board. I am suggesting that it's a causal relationship. I do not understand what you meant when you called it a thematic relationship.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Lolanime. Either way Eva's apparently snapped at this point, so it doesn't mean she shot anyone besides Battler, anyway.

I'm not necessarily saying that Eva did or didn't shoot Battler, but that the way that he witnessed her shooting him makes no sense if she were innocent.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika could relinquish her Detective authority before the end of the game, so what's stopping Battler?

Erika never relinquished her Detective Authority in EP6 because she never actually had it, only the option to take it (which was later invalidated). In fact, EP6 implies that she can't relinquish it once she's taken it, else it would not have interfered with her plan to become the culprit.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I'm not necessarily saying that Eva did or didn't shoot Battler, but that the way that he witnessed her shooting him makes no sense if she were innocent.

Incidentally, it also makes no sense if Shannon/Kanon is the culprit using a red trick to avoid death declarations. Why would Eva admit to being the culprit if she isn't? Even if she felt she needed to shoot Battler, why play along? Surely she can't still think it's all a game...