2011-05-12, 21:25 | Link #22761 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I don't get it Aura, if I say that Battler, George, Maria, Kyrie, Rudolf, Rosa, Eva and Hideyoshi are all culprits using Erika's loophole, which rule exactly can you use to counter it?
I don't think there's anything that definitely says that the culprits must be three and no more than three.
__________________
|
2011-05-12, 23:08 | Link #22762 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Small comment on something I saw on the last page, in regards to someone asking what Lambda represented on the top level. Mind, I haven't read EP8 yet (it's finals time at my school...), but I'm aware of it's events. To grossly overgeneralize, I've been assuming since EP6 that the characters represent :
Beatrice : The Author Battler : Intended Audience Bernkastel : THE INTERNET (well, other readers) Lambda : Editor Goats : Either individual popular theories, or more "other readers" than Bern, I guess Erika : The pressure the reading audience exerts on the Author So, you have Beatrice writing for her audience, Battler. Bern (other people) take an interest in a tale that amuses them. Lambda, the editor, guarantees that the story will be published, offers writing advice and edits things, and is familiar with the audience they'll be selling too (familiarity with Bernkastel). Eventually, people on the internet become extremely critical of Piece-Battler's jam-packed-with-fail detective work, and insist that a REAL detective would do this or that, and that the story is no good if the author can't provide a thusly qualified detective. Enter Erika, who represents the cruel logic of an audience only concerned with winning the logic game, and dislike things like "Battler sat tight and didn't leave the guesthouse until the 9th Twilight". When I think of Lambda's role in that way, it explains most of her actions pretty well in my opinion, from threatening Beatrice to maintain the game, to her role as the objective judge as to whether Battler's logic error had been resolved, to her desire for a happy ending (if I recall correctly?) towards the end. |
2011-05-12, 23:36 | Link #22763 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-05-12, 23:50 | Link #22764 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
Bern might not have intended this, but it's clear that Ryu did, seeing as he wrote the story and made Erika actually point this out. Of course, if someone would like to reread the hints and double check for anything i might have missed that's fine. |
|
2011-05-12, 23:50 | Link #22765 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
So things about whether it was not possible or rather not probable... yah, I agree with you, but from the pure puzzle approach things that are probable or improbable don't matter. Quote:
Quote:
Also, the children would not have mistaken their life/death status if they acknowledged they were alive, and then killed them. But was there any contention about this part? Quote:
Edit: I thought it was going to be a pain to go back through all the rules until I realized there's an English translation now. 8) Double Edit: Quote:
|
|||||
2011-05-12, 23:56 | Link #22766 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-05-13, 00:41 | Link #22767 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Ah, ok. No, I should have accounted for those as well. I thought you meant something like how you figured that only one family can be the set of culprits. I didn't see that rule but I figured you must have made the assumption from the ruleset somehow.
|
2011-05-13, 06:56 | Link #22769 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
At any rate what I asked if there was a rule that you could use to counter the theory and this is not, since you claimed that it's impossible that there are more than three culprits. As far as I can tell there's nothing that makes it impossible. Quote:
BTW I just realized... Since obviously Bern's game doesn't necessarily follows Knox rules and Dine rules and no confirmation was given about those either, what could prevent me from using "secret passages" as a way to explain the closed rooms?
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2011-05-13 at 07:39. |
||
2011-05-13, 12:37 | Link #22770 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
|
Most puzzles can be solved by a bullshit loophole, for the simple reason that the author doesn't want to write an entire paragraph of additional clarifications for annoying pedants who just want to make themselves look clever (see: Erika). They generally contain some implicit assumptions (which I think is partly what Ryukishi was getting at with the whole red text thing early on).
|
2011-05-13, 13:48 | Link #22772 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
At least that's not a problem for the servants.
__________________
|
|
2011-05-13, 17:30 | Link #22774 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
I mean, what if I said an emergent rule was being implied that ''Loopholes are valid'' since Ryu didn't let Erika go uncountered? Besides I kind of liked how the whole ''3 paragraph rule'' thing was going in Umineko. While Bernkastel wanted simplicity, as I was going through the evidence, I wasn't sure if it was tricking me into thinking Battlers family was the culprit, and I was really starting to suspect George. So it became a 50/50 chance of luck between the two. I just guessed Battler first, and ended up being right. Another loophole I found was with Kanon. Kanon is now treated as being killed, and his master key has been treated as being destroyed.. Is this a trick to confuse the body count? If Kanon can be ''killed'', then he can be murdered, and as such would have to count for the ''6 people'', but a culprit has to kill one directly with their own hands, so if the culprit of the first twilight killed Shannon, and Kanon died as a chain(as they're both the same people), does that mean that counts towards the 6 people?I figured that Bern didn't give a fuck and just wanted simplicity, but at the same time I was wondering if I was being tricked into missing that. Although I can understand what you're saying, the problem is whether or not to be sure if they made those loopholes for a reason. I thought that the loopholes were meaningless once Battler's family was right, but then Erika came... |
|
2011-05-13, 18:22 | Link #22775 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Hey you guys, I think I found one rule which violates the George/Maria solution:
Shannon: お子様方はそれぞれ、自分の親が間違いなく死んでいることを確認なさいました…。 I haven't seen the English version of this, but if it's as Aura states... something like, "They ascertained their life or death status" then that is a mistranslation. The Japanese from the game states that the children certified each of their parents' deaths, rather than whether they were living or not, as spoken by Shannon. Therefore they couldn't have been murdered after the fact. So then the Battler/Kyrie/Rudolf solution is the only solution left. EDIT: (Because it's impossible for both George and Maria to have completed a murder each due to lack of available victims, and that they both guarantee each other's innocence. If only one completed a murder, there's some kind of paradox there, I think. It must be both or none for those two.) |
2011-05-13, 18:25 | Link #22776 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-05-13, 18:38 | Link #22777 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
The culprit of the first twilight really did killsix people.
It was never stated that Kanon was murdered, but Bernkastels red truth said ''killed 6 people''. If one of the adults murdered Shannon, and Kanon was hence ''killed'' indirectly, they can still be the culprit and have Kanon count towards the 6 people. Now, if it said, ''The culprit killed 6 people, this also refers to the number of corpses, Kanon's is merely missing'', it'd make more sense. This was a problem in the 6th game where Erika made Beatrice repeat that ''People going in our out means number of bodies'', which is why it made me think something was wierd. |
2011-05-13, 20:14 | Link #22779 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
|
Quote:
Heck, all the non confirmed by Jessica and Nanjo people could be culprits under this loophole (except Kanon, I guess). Generally, if using a loophole gives you many solutions to a problem which is meant to have one unique solution, you aren't meant to use it. Quote:
They're not exactly "meaningless" in story terms - Ryukishi needed to leave something open for Erika to attack. But that doesn't mean that they're actually valid solutions to it as a puzzle. |
||
Thread Tools | |
|
|