[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Marion

Erika and Ange are different cases. She could get Erika there because Erika is destined to wash up on the island shores, just as a corpse normally. Ange, on the other hand, is likely in Kyoto with Kyrie's father or somewhere far from Niijima. Events off the island are stagnant, so it's a rather stagnant fact that Ange is always sick enough to not go.

I believe the rule is more related to time. Anything that happens before the game never changes and that is why Ange will never be on the island.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Marion

Erika and Ange are different cases. She could get Erika there because Erika is destined to wash up on the island shores, just as a corpse normally. Ange, on the other hand, is likely in Kyoto with Kyrie's father or somewhere far from Niijima. Events off the island are stagnant, so it's a rather stagnant fact that Ange is always sick enough to not go.

I'm picturing a game board where Meta Ange is the detective, and her piece is her six year old self that replaced Battler on the island using some illusion jujitsu. The idea that pre-game events are static was never stated in red for the Chiru games, after all, so something like Ghosterika could be set up...

[Jan-Poo]

However Battler changed the adhesive power of all the duct tapes in Rokkenjima. I don't think they were all bought and brought to the island after the start of the game, so this should count as a change before the start of the game.

Of course you can say this is actually not a real change but some kind of trickery. But then this is still a loophole to bring Ange to Rokkenjima. Many people do believe that Erika was introduced as a completely fake charatcer, so why can't you do the same with Ange?

Not like I think this will actually happen in EP7, but I see no real reason to think it would be impossible to bring Ange in a game,

[Judoh]

Just something I noticed. The theater stage background behind Nanjo in the screenshot is also in the background of the cover of the game

Spoiler for look closely:

".........Perhaps that will be alright. ...I can tell you."

I wonder what that background is for

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

However Battler changed the adhesive power of all the duct tapes in Rokkenjima. I don't think they were all bought and brought to the island after the start of the game, so this should count as a change before the start of the game.

Of course you can say this is actually not a real change but some kind of trickery. But then this is still a loophole to bring Ange to Rokkenjima. Many people do believe that Erika was introduced as a completely fake charatcer, so why can't you do the same with Ange?

Not like I think this will actually happen in EP7, but I see no real reason to think it would be impossible to bring Ange in a game,

He could have controlled someone to take all of the 'stronger tape' leaving only weaker tape.

[HigurashinoUmineko]

Uhh I seem a little late now but I'm hearing all of these theories that the woman is asumu but didn't Asumu married into the family and therefore can't have the one winged eagle on her clothing? (Like Natsuhi, Hideyoshi, and Kyrie) This girl clearly has the one winged eagle on her clothes so she can't be Asumu.

[Tjfarmer]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Just something I noticed. The theater stage background behind Nanjo in the screenshot is also in the background of the cover of the game

Spoiler for look closely:

".........Perhaps that will be alright. ...I can tell you."

I wonder what that background is for

Quick speculation on my part...

Featherine is the Witch of Theater (or Drama, or something.... right? Maybe it was Fiction). Maybe sometime in the future, a play is made (written by Featherine/Hacihijou/Whatever) based upon one of the bottles found after the Rokkenjima Murders. The blonde haired girl plays Jessica, who discovers the gold and becomes a witch. And then that man is her furniture (upposed to be Kanon or something).

And the story on the island, and the story in the play closely resemble each other. But one is by Featherine, the other by Bern, so naturally they differ in some aspects.... and I don't know where I'm going with this

Unlikely, not sure if want.

[Tori626]

I know this is pretty much crak induced since it's 1 a.m here but. I noticed that on the cover that Zepar and Furfer are standing on either sde of the new characters. What if they are the human representations of them? Which would also prove that zepar is a guy(or girl...? because furfer has gold eyes) but yeah.

That or they could be the ones behined it all. I could imagine the girl coaxing Maria to believe she's Beatrce,

Anyway. Just some crack from my brain. anyway. I' out. Night y'all.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by HigurashinoUmineko

Uhh I seem a little late now but I'm hearing all of these theories that the woman is asumu but didn't Asumu married into the family and therefore can't have the one winged eagle on her clothing? (Like Natsuhi, Hideyoshi, and Kyrie) This girl clearly has the one winged eagle on her clothes so she can't be Asumu.

ha! nice point, I think we can put a cross on it, unless you speculate that Asumu has another reason to have the golden eagle on her clothes.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

ha! nice point, I think we can put a cross on it, unless you speculate that Asumu has another reason to have the golden eagle on her clothes.

The other thing about that is that she actually has two eagles on her clothing. On her pants leg and on her collar. As far as I know that only other person to have two one winged eagles on their clothing is Kinzo on his cape, and on his collar, and it's usually said to be because he's the head of the family. Not one of the meta characters have two of the one winged eagles on their clothing. Not one.

EDIT: Well except maybe Eva... since she has like 3 or 4

EDIT2: Actually disregard that entire post. I forgot Krauss. it's not unusual after all

[Smeckledorf]

Still, that guy bothers me. His 'style' doesn't seem to fit with what we have seen so far in Umineko.

[k//eternal]

Given that EP6's ura tea implies that this game is going to be pretty harsh and massively unromantic, it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was Van Dine / Wizard Hunting Wright. I doubt he'll be able to use his rules as red, though, or that'd be instant destruction of the game.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

Given that EP6's ura tea implies that this game is going to be pretty harsh and massively unromantic, it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was Van Dine / Wizard Hunting Wright. I doubt he'll be able to use his rules as red, though, or that'd be instant destruction of the game.

Gold eyes like Dlanor... that fits.

[Xoraan14]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Still, that guy bothers me. His 'style' doesn't seem to fit with what we have seen so far in Umineko.

And that would kind of reinforce the 'no love' and 'just cold hard facts' part of this episode then wouldn't it.

[k//eternal]

If he was Van Dine, it certainly would.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

Given that EP6's ura tea implies that this game is going to be pretty harsh and massively unromantic, it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was Van Dine / Wizard Hunting Wright. I doubt he'll be able to use his rules as red, though, or that'd be instant destruction of the game.

I read his 20 rules and none of them seem to 'destroy the game'. However, they do limit it just like Knox's seemed to. If you disagree, can you point out the ones you see.
I think the rules would make this completely unromantic, but that would fit.

[Judoh]

[COLOR="Blue"]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

I read his 20 rules and none of them seem to 'destroy the game'. However, they do limit it just like Knox's seemed to. If you disagree, can you point out the ones you see.
I think the rules would make this completely unromantic, but that would fit.

Are you kidding me?

• There is a rule saying no servants can be culprits (broken just about everywhere)
• There must be a detective (broken in EP6)
• There must be only one culprit (if you don't think this one is broken you are beyond help my friend)
• And the kicker is rule three "There must be no love interests. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar'.
• there is also the no mafia rule which I'd like to think is sorta broken

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Are you kidding me?

• There is a rule saying no servants can be culprits (broken just about everywhere)
• There must be a detective (broken in EP6)
• There must be only one culprit (if you don't think this is broken you are beyond help my friend)
• And the kicker is rule three "The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar'.
• there is also the no mafia rule which I'd like to think is sorta broken

There is not definitive proof that a servant killed one person.
Episode 6 had at least one logic error, who is to say there wasn't more than one?
There can be co-culprits, and again no proof.
The story isn't over yet, and the 'detective' has never had a love interest.
What you think does not effect the truth.

[Kylon99]

I can see the introduction of a Van Dine-like character who tries to force the narrative (as EP7 can be a newer one) into Van Dine rules... and resulting in failure... just like Erika... 8)

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

There is not definitive proof that a servant killed one person.
Episode 6 had at least one logic error, who is to say there wasn't more than one?
There can be co-culprits, and again no proof.
The story isn't over yet, and the 'detective' has never had a love interest.
What you think does not effect the truth.

You love to say that 'proof' must be shown somehow, especially in a work of fiction. It's clear that EP6 had no detective. Why don't YOU show proof that there was a detective somehow? There is no onus for proof where the story clearly showed that the one detective gave up her detective status. The onus is on you to somehow show that she didn't or someone else assumed it. Please offer proof, and not clues.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I can see the introduction of a Van Dine-like character who tries to force the narrative (as EP7 can be a newer one) into Van Dine rules... and resulting in failure... just like Erika... 8)

That was really what I meant, but I don't think he will fail. I think he is meant to clear what could not be seen through love. So... without love it can be seen.

I think I have found the words for what I meant to convey. Van Dine will show the mystery with his rules applied because the answer was obscured when it was presented as it was.