[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.

Well, Lambda promoted Battler to Golden Witch/wizard so as such he could use red and even use Beato's furnitures.
Also Battler used red in EP 4 also.
Also EP 5 showed that even Natsuhi could use red when it was a truth they possessed. She knew for sure she only told Shannon about which season she liked so the text had it written in red... even though I don't think Natsuhi was aware of it.
So, if Battler now knows for sure how things went and it's not just a theory but the truth I guess he can use red.

EP 4 showed also he won't be able to use red if his belief was untrue so I think Battler's red is an extra demostration he solved the game.

Originally Posted by Valkama

The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.

For me Eva was an accomplice, the real culprit being Yasu again.
Eva-Beatrice represents that Yasu was using her as red herring, like she was doing with Natsuhi in Ep 5 and, at the same time, might represent the fight inside Eva about accepting to be an accomplice in this just for the gold.

Let's pretend Eva didn't solve the epitaph but was handed the solution and the title in exchange for cooperation in a 'murderer game'. She's shown the gold. She agreed to help although she has her doubts but she's promised nothing will happen to those whom she holds dear.
However when she's about to leave she meets Rosa, who had followed her.
So she comes to an agreement with Rosa so that she won't say anything so that Eva will secretly be able to continue playing accomplice.
However Yasu thinks Rosa might know something she shouldn't and therefore killed her and Maria.
Eva begins to regret making an agreement with 'Beatrice' just for the gold and headship but doesn't dare to confess.

It's likely that although Beato contacted her she didn't show herself in person, like she did with Natsuhi so, even if Eva wanted to talk with whom she could talk?

From here things go downhill. Yasu keeps on killing and Eva doesn't know whom to suspect. In the end she believes it's Battler who's the culprit and shoots him while Yasu was busy offing Nanjo (and possibly creating a mystery of how Jessica could reach another room and claim Kanon leads her there).

No idea if Yasu offed Jessica too or let her there, Eva went searching for her, wanting to tell her she had killed the one she believed to be culprit, found Nanjo dead, knew it coudn't have been Battler so believed Jessica did it, offed Jessica and then escaped.

Originally Posted by Renall

Essentially, Battler has advanced an alternative theory which allows it to be introduced that Kinzo is already dead (and he has another tack on this theory which he busts out after the gold is used which seals it up). Except he still can't just say that; he points out himself that there is no objective way to verify it. He then is just... sorta like "Yeah this is it." Now, why might he say that?

Personally I always thought that the golden truth represent a firm, personal belief and therefore a truth that, for that person, doesn't need proof.

Sort of like saying God exists.

That's why it can be less strong or more strong than red. If red can shake your belief the golden truth will be destroyed. If red can't it will be stronger.

I guess the idea the GM could use it comes from the fact that the GM build the gameboard according to certain personal beliefs the GM couldn't really check, for example that Sakutaro was built by Rosa and the only one in the world.

Beato couldn't really check this as Sakutaro isn't fictional but existed in reality too and she had no control over reality nor the way to check.

She probably would have been able to say in gold that Sakutaro was Rosa's handmade gift, at least before Ange provided her with evidence there was more than 1 Sakutaro and she lost her belief in that truth.

Maria insted might be still able to say it in gold as likely she would be capable to make up an explanation she could believe in her mind and that won't deny the 'Rosa made it theory'. Of course her gold might weaken if her theory is countered by many reds... though we see that in Maria's battle with Erika, although she loses she didn't really give up therefore shaking Maria's beliefs might be harder than we think.

Red instead is more restrictive as we're proven that, no matter what you believe, you can't say it if it isn't true (at least according to the interpretation you give to your own words). However for the red you say to be accepted by the other party you either have the other accept it (usually by providing proof) or it can be rejected and, although you're saying the truth, nobody will believe you (and the red truth will have no strenght like it happened to Battler in Ep 5).

That though is how I interpret it.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

It comes down to how much you can suspend your belief. The rain issue RK describes is pretty easy to discard since it would screw up the game in many ways. Things like carts on a second floor aren't really that important since there are ways to transport food easily to multiple floors without having a big elevator.

The gold truth dilemma is much harder to hand wave, probably because its on a meta level (so we cant blame Yasu just being a bad writer). You cant say "Hey just ignore this tiny detail, the story is more fun if you do" because of how important its made to be in that scene.

Its bad storytelling on part of RK because thinking about it retroactively you see how glaring a hole it is.

I would be fine with suspending my belief if it wasn't that Umineko is a game about reasoning.
In short, if someone doesn't get sopping wet in a storm I'm going to assume there's a reason and that this reason is relevant to find the solution.
Same for the carts or whatever else.
The suspension of belief works nicely when there's no reasoning to do or when I'm warned beforehand that this part will 'escape to normal logic/true facts/whatever'.

Otherwise placing something in that asks me to suspend my disbelief is misleading. How can I know I'm not supposed to wonder on it to reach the solution?