[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Almazluverdis3]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Gaap could be a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle for all I care. I think she is the least relevant thing in Umineko. The scorpion charm is more relevant than Gaap. The boat that brought Battler to Rokkenjima is more important than Gaap. The cloud in the background when Battler was boarding that one plane is in fact more relevant than Gaap.

That's too true.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Almazluverdis3

Gold=Red. It's a simple process if you read carefully.

For example, Beato wants Battler to say something in gold. She asks him to repeat after her in Gold text. He says it.

Beato: Repeat this. '(Example) Die the death.' (LOL)

Battler: Die the death.

Easy. That's how I see gold text. It's so Battler doesn't think Beato is lying.

Nah... the gold text doesn't work like that at all. In the case of red text it's there to introduce problems and mysteries. In the case of blue text it's there so the GM has to respond with red at least at the end of the game.

With Gold you don't have to respond with it at all. Your not obligated to use it and in most cases it would be better if you didn't use it. It's only superior to the red sometimes, but that's usually when your trapped in a web of red and blue. It's inferior when it's used too early or there is just red being used against it.

The difference between the red and the golden text is that the red can be advantageous both during a game and at the end of a game, but for different reasons. The Gold text is more like a finishing move in a fighting game and if you want it to be effective it should either be used at the last minute, when no one expects it or not at all. Otherwise it is inferior to the red truth. Golden truth is best when it's sheathed.

You don't have to ask for someone to repeat something in gold, because it's not always 100% true like the red is and it wouldn't be reliable or safe to make someone repeat something in Gold. I mean Dlanor got his butt wooped when Battler used it.

Not to mention that like the blue there is a certain way of phrasing the gold and it's difficult to think of that the minute you use it. In both golds so far the subject of the gold is repeated.

I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's corpse...!!

Using magic, you created a golden rose petal underneath the cup. It was a magnificent display of magic

The Gold text has to be in a format of [subject] predicate [/subject] or it's not going to be said in that color. That's the trick. Just like you have to phrase the Blue as if it's only a possibility otherwise the witch doesn't have to respond.

[Renall]

Actually, are you sure that the same subject/predicate arrangement is common to the Japanese? We discussed this once, and I believe chronotrig said something wasn't how it appears about the Japanese construction of the same phrases.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Actually, are you sure that the same subject/predicate arrangement is common to the Japanese? We discussed this once, and I believe chronotrig said something wasn't how it appears about the Japanese construction of the same phrases.

Well I did check once. And it's not repeated at the end of the sentence the way it is in english, but the subject is still repeated it just looks a bit different. Well I kind of checked with Rikaichan so take that with a grain of salt I guess.

It's a slightly different construction in japanese, but the gist is the same I think. I heard somewhere that in Japanese conversation the subject is usually assumed to be the same. So I thought it was strange to have a word repeated like that.

[Jan-Poo]

The point is I can't see why a rule like that should exists, it seems completely pointless.

And two samples are too few to reach any conclusion.

[Judoh]

It shouldn't be pointless if it's true though. And I can't see why it'd happen in both samples by accident.

It could be something that makes it risky to use so your discouraged from using it all the time. Or the subject repetition could be to make sure it's not interpreted as being about anything else. That's what I think. It's better not to think about why it's used that way , but instead about how it's being used. Since Ryuksihi said it's like a finishing move in a fighting game it could be exactly like that. There is a certain danger in using a move like that. If you don't push the right combination of buttons at the right time it's probably won't work at all and you'll lose to your opponent anyway. So you have to practice to get really good at it.

[Jan-Poo]

I don't see how it requires some incredible skill either... I can't think of any kind of limitation that would come from that, you just need to repeat the subject, you can do it with any sentence.

[Judoh]

Actually it is kind of limited. Deciding the subject is the hard part. It's not always easy and at the same time you have to say it in a way that's effective against a red truth. That can take at least a few moments to think about. It also doesn't have to be a single sentence as long the subject is repeated apparently.

It took me awhile to even think of good examples when I first thought of it.

[Judoh]

I really see no good reason for the phrasing in both of them to be an accident. It looks deliberate to me. If we get a new one that contradicts what we've seen so far maybe I'll concede, but I absolutely see no good reason for it to be said that way, both times, by accident, when we're supposed to be able to figure out how it works from these two examples. Really just give me a reason. Why can't it be deliberately written this way for us to figure that out?

[Renall]

I think Jan-Poo's point is that with only two examples, any similarities detected could be coincidence. With at least three or more examples, we could begin to more readily determine which elements always appear and which ones only sometimes appear.

Having more users of the text might also give us a clue as to who can use it and when. Right now, that's pretty vague.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I really see no good reason for the phrasing in both of them to be an accident. It looks deliberate to me. If we get a new one that contradicts what we've seen so far maybe I'll concede, but I absolutely see no good reason for it to be said that way, both times, by accident, when we're supposed to be able to figure out how it works from these two examples. Really just give me a reason. Why can't it be deliberately written this way for us to figure that out?

Two is still a small sample. Not saying that you are wrong, but we can't say two is a solid sample.

[Judoh]

You understand what I'm saying though right? The Blue is phrased pretty differently from the red too. If there are similarities to the gold like this we should take notice to them and try to see if we can imitate it since there very few of them you see? Just dismissing those similarities as coincidence doesn't add anything to the conversation.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Just dismissing them as coincidence doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Makes sense.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Makes sense.

It doesn't. Just dismissing it as coincidence ends the conversation before you can think of why. It's the same as saying "let's wait and see" when we don't even know anything is going to happen.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Actually it is kind of limited. Deciding the subject is the hard part. It's not always easy and at the same time you have to say it in a way that's effective against a red truth. That can take at least a few moments to think about. It also doesn't have to be a single sentence as long the subject is repeated apparently.

It took me awhile to even think of good examples when I first thought of it.

1) What kind of thing cannot be said if there's the "limit" of the repetition of the subject? If you find even a single example I might take in consideration your idea.

2) Why gold needs to be effective against a red? None of the two gold truths we have is clearly structured to be against a red. Actually the first we've seen is totally compatible with the red truth.

3) The comparison with the blue truth isn't really working for me. What you suggest is a rule on the "form" of the sentence while both blue truths and red truths have rules about the "substance". Rules about the substance make perfect sense to me. Rules about the form, not so much. And I'm not just talking about the particular rule you have found. Any kind of rule on the form like for example "it must be said in rhyme" looks completely pointless to me.

[chronotrig]

I'd say it's the opposite. The gold truth is strong against the blue and weak against the red. Take Beato's magic in EP6. Obviously, she didn't really use magic, so you should be able to say in red "that wasn't magic", stalemate issues aside, to win the argument almost by default. On the other hand, if you trust the gold truth implicitly, it would make it harder to make theories about the truth (you'd believe that Beato actually used magic). For something obvious like magic, it isn't much of a trick, but if it was "Kinzo is alive", that'd be much harder to get around.

[Leafsnail]

Oddly, while on holiday, I thought of two possible ideas.

Firstly, while looking around an old monastary, I was suddenly struck by all the... statues. The ones which, after the dissolution, had had their faces carved off. It seems someone wanted to literally deface the Ushiromiya family... odd. For some reason I now imagine the murderer looking down at the ep1 first twlight victims and shouting "Don't look at me!!"

Secondly, since Kanon's name relates to religion, he therefore MUST be a woman related to Battler! Or... perhaps not. Explains why he looks after the chapel, in any case.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Judoh

It doesn't. Just dismissing it as coincidence ends the conversation before you can think of why. It's the same as saying "let's wait and see" when we don't even know anything is going to happen.

... I meant what you said...

[delita-umw-]

You know Leaf, you raise an interesting point with the trying to deface the Ushiormiya family. My question though is that during that first twilight everyone's defaced, why is it that only Rudolph and Kyrie have their entire faces removed?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by delita-umw-

You know Leaf, you raise an interesting point with the trying to deface the Ushiormiya family. My question though is that during that first twilight everyone's defaced, why is it that only Rudolph and Kyrie have their entire faces removed?

Closest relation to Battler.