[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

First off, it's not an unfair trial. The exact same rules applied to both sides. The only thing that was unfair was the match-up, with basically 5 people against Battler. But this would have been the same even without the trial. Also, what way does Battler have of abolishing the trial? He doesn't have any control over this world until he becomes the Game Master. At that point in the game, without Beato to help him, he's basically trapped.

Even the witches admit that Battler has pretty much no way of winning at that point.

Why you keep insisting it is not unfair if you then acknowledge that it isn't fair ^^;
Let's make a distinction between "unfair" and "rigged".

"Unfair" is when in a game the conditions are strongly in favor of a single player. This doesn't mean at all that the rules aren't respected. The rules themselves can be unfair.

"Rigged" is when one of the players or both manipulate the game mechanics in a way that goes against the purpose of the game. It works both for written and unwritten rules. It doesn't necessarily entail an "advantage" for a single player. For example a football match where the two teams agree to end the match in a draw is "rigged" 'though no one has really any advantage on the other. You usually do not find in rule manuals that "the players must do their best to win", and there are many other "unwritten rules" in games. Just because it isn't written it doesn't mean it is okay to do anything.


Now the trial was both unfair and rigged.

It was unfair, because there was an overwhelming power on one side and practically nothing on the other.

It was rigged, because the ones that should have been in direct opposition were conniving. Lambda was supposed to take Beatrice's side, instead she let Bern and Erika slaughter her. She was supposed to give to Beatrice the red, instead she gave it to Bern.

[chronotrig]

The trial itself is not unfair. However, one side does have all the information. It's perfectly possible to have a fair trial system but an uneven trial. That's the point I was trying to make. To use a stupid example, take Phoenix Wright. At the beginning, at least, he often gets dragged into the case with no information when the opposition has all the info. That doesn't mean the trial was unfair, it just means that he didn't do enough research beforehand. (well, those trials were unfair, but for completely different reasons).

A trial isn't a game. There's no responsibility that both sides have an equal opportunity to win. It's whichever side that can make the best argument that wins.

Also, in the trial, Lambda was not on anyone's side. If you believe that she has already handed Bern's team all the gold text they'd need beforehand, then she was a perfectly impartial judge during the trial. This is all she claimed to be, so there's no misleading going on here (again, at least during the trial itself).

Finally, it's true that Battler wasn't told all the rules beforehand, but he wasn't a player before the trail or during the first part of it. The deck was stacked before the trial, but the trial itself was fair.

[LyricalAura]

The gold pretty much has to be atemporal, I think. It was midnight on October 5th when Battler stated that this corpse is the corpse of Ushiromiya Kinzo. If it has a timestamp on it, then it has exactly the same problem that Bern's statement about the first twilight deaths does: Kinzo could have died at any point during the two days, so Erika's theory isn't denied. The gold only works as a denial if it retroactively applies to the period when Kinzo was supposedly hauling bodies.

@chronotrig: Impartial judge? Bern got so carried away trying to corner Natsuhi that she shot her own foot off and negated Erika's theory herself:
At the stroke of midnight, the only people who exist outside the mansion are Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa. Natsuhi, Krauss, and Genji were in the 2nd floor hallway in the mansion. Everyone else was in the dining room on the 1st floor. Therefore, a living Kinzo could only exist in the dining room. No one in the dining room at midnight left until 1am. However, during that period from midnight to 1am, a living Kinzo did not exist on the first floor, where the dining room is. Therefore, a living Kinzo did not exist anywhere. Kinzo was dead as of midnight.
So there was no effective theory at the time Lambda ended the trial, but she gave the victory to Bern and Erika anyway. What part of that is impartial?

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

What part of that is impartial?

The usual term to describe that kind of trial is "Kangaroo Court"... the entire thing seemed rigged to a) implicate Natsuhi b) kill Beatrice and c) kill Battler, all of which it accomplished.

In fact, since the entirety of Ep5 leads up to the trial, from what I've heard, I'd say the whole game is rigged.

I don't see how anyone can constitute Ep5 as "fair"...

[chronotrig]

First off, I did slip up on one thing in my gold text theory. When Battler says "I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's", he hasn't yet brought up the time he "saw" Kinzo on the game board. Of course, Battler says in red that he'll "present a corpse which could possibly be identified as Ushiromiya Kinzo's", and there's only one place in all of EP5 where anyone witnesses a corpse that might have been Kinzo's, which he mentions shortly after. So this doesn't really affect my theory, though I'll admit it's a little less conclusive this way. This also means that the alternate theory (gold text is true for all times) does work for this part, though it doesn't explain too much of the rest of the trial.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

@chronotrig: Impartial judge? Bern got so carried away trying to corner Natsuhi that she shot her own foot off and negated Erika's theory herself:
At the stroke of midnight, the only people who exist outside the mansion are Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa. Natsuhi, Krauss, and Genji were in the 2nd floor hallway in the mansion. Everyone else was in the dining room on the 1st floor. Therefore, a living Kinzo could only exist in the dining room. No one in the dining room at midnight left until 1am. However, during that period from midnight to 1am, a living Kinzo did not exist on the first floor, where the dining room is. Therefore, a living Kinzo did not exist anywhere. Kinzo was dead as of midnight.
So there was no effective theory at the time Lambda ended the trial, but she gave the victory to Bern and Erika anyway. What part of that is impartial?

Remember again that this is a trial. If evidence isn't presented and arguments aren't made, it's as if they don't exist. You wrote all of that in red, but it was never said in red during the trial. If Battler had just said that, he should have been able to win. But he didn't ever deny it, which is why Bernkastel won. If you have a bad enough lawyer, you can lose even a solid case. Lambda was impartial in choosing the only claim which hadn't yet been denied in court.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

I don't see how anyone can constitute Ep5 as "fair"...

No, no one has ever said that, I think. EP5 wasn't fair to Battler, but then again, Battler wasn't a player during the game itself. So while Lambda and Bern really are bullying Battler, it doesn't mean that the game (the entire game as a whole, not just EP5) itself is ever un-winable if you are a player.

[tastythoughts]

Ohh, okay.

[maximilianjenus]

Originally Posted by tastythoughts

I have a question....

Spoiler for Ending of Umineko:

After Erika denies Beatrice and she dies, is there anything after that? Like, are they going to continue the series and maybe have Battler beat Erika and bring Beato back? If something like that already exsits, please tell me. Thanks.

for fuck's sake, mark your spoilers correctly, at least add an episode 5 tag in there, while I ahd already guessed that event because of the fanart you still put a great spoiler.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

The trial itself is not unfair. However, one side does have all the information. It's perfectly possible to have a fair trial system but an uneven trial. That's the point I was trying to make. To use a stupid example, take Phoenix Wright. At the beginning, at least, he often gets dragged into the case with no information when the opposition has all the info. That doesn't mean the trial was unfair, it just means that he didn't do enough research beforehand. (well, those trials were unfair, but for completely different reasons).

A trial isn't a game. There's no responsibility that both sides have an equal opportunity to win. It's whichever side that can make the best argument that wins.

Also, in the trial, Lambda was not on anyone's side. If you believe that she has already handed Bern's team all the gold text they'd need beforehand, then she was a perfectly impartial judge during the trial. This is all she claimed to be, so there's no misleading going on here (again, at least during the trial itself).

Finally, it's true that Battler wasn't told all the rules beforehand, but he wasn't a player before the trail or during the first part of it. The deck was stacked before the trial, but the trial itself was fair.

I don't think I can follow your reasoning here. In other words you are saying that this is not a game but a trial. If it is a trial your comparison then it is even worse.

First off, a judge is not supposed to provide evidences to either part. If he does you'd expect him to give them to both the attorney and the prosecutor. How can you say that Lambda is impartial by giving Bern the gold (btw you actually meant "red" I hope...) and not giving it to Beatrice?

Second, Beatrice was in the "defendant" role. But that wasn't the real Beatrice, it was piece-Beatrice, and who is manipulating piece-Beatrice? Lambda, in other words the judge! This is a trial where the defendant is the Judge's puppet and yet the defense gets completely owned. How is that not a farce?

Third, the trial's rules state that red needs to be based on evidences, however Bernkastel uses reds with evidences that are blatantly fake. It doesn't matter at all if she's got other evidences that only she knows off, the only thing that matters in a trial is what is shown inside the trial. And the stuffs that Erika says either are impossible or do not really prove anything. The rule therefore is respected only in appearance and not in substance.

[SilverSyko]

Originally Posted by maximilianjenus

for fuck's sake, mark your spoilers correctly, at least add an episode 5 tag in there, while I ahd already guessed that event because of the fanart you still put a great spoiler.

Sheesh, get a grip eh?

He/she's a newbie here so lighten up. It's excusable if they follow the rules next time, everyone slips up, ecpecially newbies.

[Marion]

Spoiler for EP 5:

Even though Beatrice was controlled by Lambda the fact is you can't make a piece act against their nature. That's how it was for every piece in the game - that's why you saw Battler defending Natsuhi and Eva crying over bodies in fits of rage.

[Jan-Poo]

That's right, but what in Beatrice's nature prevented her from winning the trial or having enough informations to win?

[Tyabann]

I believe that, unlike in chess, the pieces are capable of acting on their own if not directed.

I think Lambda just wanted Beato to suffer.

[LaplaceNoMa]

I was just re-reading first 4 episodes and there's something that caught my attention: the scenery of 'child'-Beatrice meating Virgillia (while she was called 'Beatrice') is exactly the same as of Kuwadorian. Which is actually strange since we 'know' that Beatrice was bound to that place long after she 'became a witch'. I don't have any theories regarding that, but still this is something that shouldn't go overlooked.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

First off, a judge is not supposed to provide evidences to either part. If he does you'd expect him to give them to both the attorney and the prosecutor. How can you say that Lambda is impartial by giving Bern the gold (btw you actually meant "red" I hope...) and not giving it to Beatrice?

Spoiler for size:

As I said, during the trial. Unless Lambdadelta was whispering things into Bern's ear during the trial, she didn't give Bern any extra help. The trial itself wasn't created until the end of the game, so what happened before its start doesn't matter in this case. The individual trial was unfair, but the trail system itself was not, from a certain point of view. You could easily call it a limited system (all systems are), but if both sides went into it with equal knowledge, they should have an equal chance at winning assuming the facts of the case allow for that. That's all I mean when I say fair.

By "giving gold", I mean "giving a line of red text that exactly matches a gold line". Most red text only denies a specific thing: no secret passages in this room, Kinzo is dead. However, something like "what the detective sees is always the truth" can lead to new red texts later on in the game depending on what the detective does later on. That's what I'm referring to here.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Second, Beatrice was in the "defendant" role. But that wasn't the real Beatrice, it was piece-Beatrice, and who is manipulating piece-Beatrice? Lambda, in other words the judge! This is a trial where the defendant is the Judge's puppet and yet the defense gets completely owned. How is that not a farce?

Spoiler for size:

Lambda is not in control of the piece Beatrice. There's no real proof that this is the case. Even if Lambda is responsible for creating the piece Beato, piece Beato has a will of her own, and seems to be fighting as well as anyone could who doesn't know any facts. You can claim that piece Beato is under Lambda's total control, but that's only your personal theory.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Third, the trial's rules state that red needs to be based on evidences, however Bernkastel uses reds with evidences that are blatantly fake. It doesn't matter at all if she's got other evidences that only she knows off, the only thing that matters in a trial is what is shown inside the trial. And the stuffs that Erika says either are impossible or do not really prove anything. The rule therefore is respected only in appearance and not in substance.

Spoiler for size:

No, they are not fake evidence by the rules of this trial. Witches are allowed to make use of whatever gold text they have heard. The things Erika says are very possible if you believe that someone has said the "detective rules" in gold and that Bern is taking advantage of them. In other words, when Erika says "I stayed up all night listening to the next room perfectly", she means that she attempted to, and Bern elevates that to the red text because anything the detective attempts must be successful. Remember, even the detective is allowed to make use of Knox's 9th. As long as they don't hide clues, they can be dead wrong about any number of things. It might even be that Erika thinks she did all she said (or that meta-Erika doesn't know the details of what piece Erika did).

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Spoiler for size:

As I said, during the trial. Unless Lambdadelta was whispering things into Bern's ear during the trial, she didn't give Bern any extra help. The trial itself wasn't created until the end of the game, so what happened before its start doesn't matter in this case. The individual trial was unfair, but the trail system itself was not, from a certain point of view. You could easily call it a limited system (all systems are), but if both sides went into it with equal knowledge, they should have an equal chance at winning assuming the facts of the case allow for that. That's all I mean when I say fair.

By "giving gold", I mean "giving a line of red text that exactly matches a gold line". Most red text only denies a specific thing: no secret passages in this room, Kinzo is dead. However, something like "what the detective sees is always the truth" can lead to new red texts later on in the game depending on what the detective does later on. That's what I'm referring to here.

I can't find myself agreeing with your concept of cheating. According to this point of view, a quiz game where one contestant has been given all the answers beforehand is not rigged because during the game itself no rule was broken.
The same thing applies to a trial. You might say that a trial is perfectly legal even if the jury has been previously bought or threatened by the defendant party.

I'm quite sure that the average person wouldn't agree with this.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Spoiler for size:

Lambda is not in control of the piece Beatrice. There's no real proof that this is the case. Even if Lambda is responsible for creating the piece Beato, piece Beato has a will of her own, and seems to be fighting as well as anyone could who doesn't know any facts. You can claim that piece Beato is under Lambda's total control, but that's only your personal theory.

Then let me put it this way:

This is the fifth game. A game where Lambda took Beatrice's place as a substitute. Trial or not, it was her duty to play like Beatrice would at the best of her capabilities. Since Beatrice probably never thought about such a situation she never made any specific rule about that, so there was no problem with Lambda letting Piece-Beatrice lose. However this doesn't change the fact that a game where both adversaries are in an agreement to make the game have a certain outcome is by all definitions a farce
You can take as a reference the WWF wresling matches

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Spoiler for size:

No, they are not fake evidence by the rules of this trial. Witches are allowed to make use of whatever gold text they have heard. The things Erika says are very possible if you believe that someone has said the "detective rules" in gold and that Bern is taking advantage of them. In other words, when Erika says "I stayed up all night listening to the next room perfectly", she means that she attempted to, and Bern elevates that to the red text because anything the detective attempts must be successful. Remember, even the detective is allowed to make use of Knox's 9th. As long as they don't hide clues, they can be dead wrong about any number of things. It might even be that Erika thinks she did all she said (or that meta-Erika doesn't know the details of what piece Erika did).

I yet again disagree. You should know by now that what I refer to when I talk about the no real evidences and fake evidences I'm mainly referring to Krauss Kinzo and Genji

Absolutely no evidence was shown by Erika about Krauss' and Kinzo's non involvement with the crime.

And the evidence about Genji's innocence is too preposterous to be considered possible in any way. In this case I claim that even the mere attempt to do such a thing was absolutely impossible.

[luckyssol]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

a game where both adversaries are in an agreement to make the game have a certain outcome is by all definitions a farce

I have two questions for you.

1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?
2) In episode 5, would you consider the end result a tie between the players of the game?

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Ssol

1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?

Kill Beatrice and Battler, implicate Natsuhi as the criminal, raise Erika to the level of Game Master, and continue the game for all eternity?

Wouldn't Ep5 make a lot more sense if this was the desired outcome from the very beginning?

[luckyssol]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Kill Beatrice and Battler, implicate Natsuhi as the criminal, raise Erika to the level of Game Master, and continue the game for all eternity?

It sure as hell didn't look like they were playing to continue the game for all eternity to me after Battler was impaled by Dlanor.

Could you quote any part where there was any indication Bern and Lambda had plans to stay?

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Ssol

I have two questions for you.

1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?
2) In episode 5, would you consider the end result a tie between the players of the game?

1) We are talking about the trial here, and the trial was planned to see Beatrice losing a lopsided battle and Natsuhi being judged guilty of all the charges.

2) Depends on where you place the end. If you don't include the tea parties then the end saw Erika winning on all the fronts. If you include the tea parties then it was a draw, however Battler's revival wasn't in the plans. At least it wasn't in Bern's and Erika's plans. It is debatable if it was in Lambda's plans. However even assuming it was, then it was part of larger plan that first included the total victory of Erika in the trial and the defeat of Beatrice. The definition of "farce" in the trial case, therefore, still works.

Actually I must say that Lambda's cooperation with bern was only limited to defeating Beatrice (and Battler maybe). Lambda however used as an insurance the "dining room riddle" to prevent Bern and Erika from solving any mystery of the game. As long as a single mystery isn't solved the endless game repetition won't stop. It is hard to understand why Erika became the Game Master, the victory conditions of Beatrice's game keep changing...

[chronotrig]

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I can't find myself agreeing with your concept of cheating. According to this point of view, a quiz game where one contestant has been given all the answers beforehand is not rigged because during the game itself no rule was broken.
The same thing applies to a trial. You might say that a trial is perfectly legal even if the jury has been previously bought or threatened by the defendant party.

I'm quite sure that the average person wouldn't agree with this.

Umm...both examples you refer to are about people cheating before the trial. I said that Lambda cheated before the trial, so they don't contradict my argument in the slightest. I'm saying that during the trial, none of the rules were broken...that's all. As I've said many times, this particular trial was unfair because of the setup, but it was run in a "fair" way according to the rules. The only unfair part of how it was run is that Battler wasn't clearly told the rules, and since he wasn't even a player at the beginning, that's not really something you can take serious issue with.

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Then let me put it this way:

This is the fifth game. A game where Lambda took Beatrice's place as a substitute. Trial or not, it was her duty to play like Beatrice would at the best of her capabilities. Since Beatrice probably never thought about such a situation she never made any specific rule about that, so there was no problem with Lambda letting Piece-Beatrice lose. However this doesn't change the fact that a game where both adversaries are in an agreement to make the game have a certain outcome is by all definitions a farce
You can take as a reference the WWF wresling matches

First off, EP5 as a whole is obviously a farce. The two opponents, Lambda and Bern, are obviously working together, and they created a situation which would lead to almost absolute chances of Bern's victory in the trial. I've always accepted that. Therefore, the trial itself is also a farce in that sense. However, after it started, the rules decided on beforehand were followed. We can play word games about what best to call it, but let's just describe it as it is.

Second, the trial was between Beato and Bern, not between Lambda and Bern. The trial is NOT the game, it is a competition within the game, so Lambda isn't necessarily responsible for taking Beato's side. And, I say you can't prove that Lambda broke the rules of the trial during the trial to give Bern an advantage.

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I yet again disagree. You should know by now that what I refer to when I talk about the no real evidences and fake evidences I'm mainly referring to Krauss Kinzo and Genji

Absolutely no evidence was shown by Erika about Krauss' and Kinzo's non involvement with the crime.

And the evidence about Genji's innocence is too preposterous to be considered possible in any way. In this case I claim that even the mere attempt to do such a thing was absolutely impossible.

On this point, I'll admit that I haven't read that section of the trial recently, so I probably can't counter very well. Still, one thing about most trials is that if one side makes an unwarranted assumption, it is the responsibility of the other side to call them on it. In many situations, the judge has the responsibility to step in, but that isn't always the case. If both sides agree that something is true, then it is usually accepted as true.

In Genji's case, Bern gave the evidence about that by using the red text. Remember that Lambda said proof needed to be shown for everyone except witches. In other words, whatever basis Bern had for that red text, she didn't need to show it.