[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also I'm Japanese so your whole argument is invalid.

You live in Japan or you are of japanese blood but live elsewhere? When talking about cultural value, there's quite a difference between the two.

[unsuspectingvisitor]

Off topic question:

What's the "Our confession" thing? will that reveal the culprit? or the how dunnit?

Also, if this was a confession for the crime that happened then we have multiple culprits because of the word "Our" and the culprits was still alive after the incident. Who are they anyway.

[AuraTwilight]

I've spent roughly 49% of my life in Japan, and my mom's entire branch of the family lives there. My grandmother ran a Shinto temple and was in charge of my moral, philosophical, and theological education. I'd say my qualifications are pretty good.

What's the "Our confession" thing? will that reveal the culprit? or the how dunnit?

We're not sure; We hope for the former, and we know we're getting the latter.

[unsuspectingvisitor]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

We're not sure; We hope for the former, and we know we're getting the latter.

oh is that so. Anyway I hope for Both.

[Ayu-ayu]

What I'm hoping is that R07 is essentially recreating Yasu's game here--the removal of the last "ten pages of the book" gives the illusion of turning the mystery to fantasy, but in deference to Christie (and Yasu's actions), in the end the bottle will be washed up to shore with the missing piece of the puzzle (this "document" outside the structure of the sound novels)...which likely will still be a puzzle in itself. Or just more trolling.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And Beatrice and Kanon and Shannon were all separate people and Kinzo was alive and gave Beatrice the gold and Krauss the headship?

Yea, I doubt it. Battler lied, there's no way around it.

NO, SHE DIDN'T. Battler kept TELLING her she didn't, and that what she learned from the media and the forgeries were wrong and she should just trust what he had to say. With that in mind, she doesn't have any choice but to take his story at face value without accusing Battler of being deceptive.

The whole point, whether you agree with the morality of it or not, is that truth is subjective and thus an option for escapism is viable. However, that option doesn't work unless it is painted as "absolute". It's an entirely emotional appeal that relies on a "Rule of Happy"; there is no way that Ange would be actually fooled by Battler's "lies" on an intellectual level. And Battler knows this, so I have a hard time qualifying Battler as "being deceptive".

[RockReborn]

Anyone here have any thoughts on that 4-hour long interview Ryukishi did after Umineko ended?

Specifically, any thoughts on this quote? Because if I'm reading this right, Ryukishi actually sorta confirmed who the culprit was...

Spoiler for Potentially the entire game?:

"R I was really happy that so many people tried solving it for real and actually did solve it. Because I allowed several parallel realities to exist during the main arcs, there could be several explanations for one locked room. But for Bern’s Trial you really had to aim for one clear answer. I checked so that there was actually no other reasoning possible for that answer. And after I perfected this, I reread it with the thought in my head „if there was anything left at all except the Battler culprit theory“, and the only answer sticking out was „well, there is the chance that George had killed somebody before he came to Rokkenjima.“. I didn’t plan this at the beginning, but because of that I made Erika talk about the George culprit theory. While it is foul play to use elements in your deduction that happened before the actual incident in a logic puzzle, it was an answer I had to keep in mind, dealing with people who came in contact with something like the 4 years of battle of red against blue truth. "

[Kylon99]

Oh, Ryukishi was talking about the EP8 Puzzle Game that Bernkastel presented. The one with the purple text and so on. In that, the official answer is that it ... uh.. is this spoilers for the last 50% of EP8?

Better use a spoiler tag:

Spoiler for Potentially last 50% of EP8?:

The answer to that particular puzzle was that it was Kyrie, Rudolf and Battler that had conspired to kill everyone. But that's only for that particular puzzle and not for the rest of the series.

By the way, I had gone over the theories again and I swear, George + Maria were also viable alternatives for Battler. It doesn't fit the narrative of the puzzle, of course; it only works if you look at it like a pure logic puzzle. I had originally discounted them because it was said that the children had confirmed the death status of their parents; thinking that Battler wasn't there, but IIRC when I re-checked he was there too. Therefore that purple text was meant to mean that they ascertained their status, not that they were dead.

[Cao Ni Ma]

He was pretty adamant on Battler, Rudolph, Kyrie answer being the only possible one. If Maria+George was logically valid then thats just another strike against RK07.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

He was pretty adamant on Battler, Rudolph, Kyrie answer being the only possible one. If Maria+George was logically valid then thats just another strike against RK07.

I don't think it was valid, though, not without appealing to that off-island murder loophole. Otherwise, there just aren't enough corpses to go around to support them.

[AuraTwilight]

The whole point, whether you agree with the morality of it or not, is that truth is subjective and thus an option for escapism is viable. However, that option doesn't work unless it is painted as "absolute". It's an entirely emotional appeal that relies on a "Rule of Happy"; there is no way that Ange would be actually fooled by Battler's "lies" on an intellectual level. And Battler knows this, so I have a hard time qualifying Battler as "being deceptive".

I'm aware of this, which is why he's wrong. He's letting his emotions dictate how he thinks Ange should run her life. Look, I'm not blaming Battler on an emotional level; but if he wants to claim the moral ground he demonstrates trying to possess in the narrative, he needs to be able to put his own desires and emotions aside and look at what is actually best for Ange, even if it means ignoring what he WANTS to do. We're given no sign that Battler has this sort of maturity or understanding of Ange's needs.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

You're imposing your moral values on him... with the problem he doesn't even know your opinion. He lives in a world where what he does is right.
We can disagree but it's a matter of mentality and moral values and we can't force them on him.

I think this is a point that really needs to be made clear. You can't make that kind of reasoning.

One thing is to impose your moral values on someone by telling how he should live his life and what to do about his life or not.

Another completely different thing is imposing moral values when you want to prevent someone to act against someone else, or even just judging him.


If you don't make that distinction how would you reply to someone who says you should let him rape children because you don't have the right to impose your moral values on him?!

We are discussing here about someone (Battler) who is acting against the will of someone else (Ange), not someone who makes decisions about his own life. This latter case applies to Ange and that's the one that should be respected.
Let us not forget that Battler and Beatrice actively tried to prevent Ange from getting and opening Eva's diary.

Let us not make such hideous mistake. Freedom is a good thing only insofar as it doesn't mess with other people's freedom. We have all the rights and even the duty to judge people that break this basic principle.


Changing subject. Thinking about the murder of Rokkenjima Prime, I was wondering what kind of setting would work both in the "real" world and in the hypotetical Lion's world.

Once I still had my volcano theory, it was easy to explain why everyone would die anyway regardless of Yasu and whatever. But since apparently it was no incident, so what's the meaning behind the fact that people die anyway in the family conference of 1986?
Does that mean that it isn't even a matter of circumstances? Someone in the family is a psycho killer that would kill everyone anyway?

We don't even know if the bomb existed even in Lion's world, but even assuming it did, how did the eventual killer came to know that? Even then there is no reason to think there was that bank account card in Lion's world which would provide at least some half-assed reason for that mass murder.

Is there a way to work out a scenario that would work in both cases? Or do we need to think there are different reasons for those cases which would bring us into a "final destination" set up where if it has to happen it has to happen no matter how and why?

[UsagiTenpura]

Something I realized about why would a culprit on prime with only lowly motivations would ruin most of Umineko to me.

I've realized that theories like George or Kyrie culprits (or even Yasu really) are not any different then arc 5's Natsuhi culprit theories. Just like Erika sorta decided to use Natsuhi's "dark side" to make her into a top culprit, we are doing the same with George and Kyrie and others. Natsuhi is even actually doing rather illegal things (I think hiding someone's death is not always a major crime, but when you do it to hide your husband's own illegal affairs....) in comparison with George or Kyrie really.

So should the answer be George culprit for instance, basically to me it would prove Erika right, she simply didn't get the right "culprit" (while nontheless Natsuhi probably has a better why dunnit). Just like the Natsuhi culprit theory too, accusation of "culprit x" killing their own parents or lover in totally cold blood.

So should something like that be the answer, it would mean that we were supposed to consider Erika a "good guy" basically? Then even if that's somehow, messed up but right (Battler is actually closer to a villain and Erika closer to an heroine), that same Erika ended up murdering 6 people as a means of investigation in the arc that followed. That seems to completely ends the possibility of her being a "good guy".

So basically Umineko stops making sense if we're supposed to pretty much do what Erika did in arc 5, but with a different person. Ryuukishi ends up a writer who constantly contradict himself and most of Umineko ends up having themes and messages that we were apparently supposed to understand the exact opposite of. I mean it'd basically be "here's your role model but I'm going to make you hate her and hate her conclusion while expecting you to figure out something pretty much equivalent but slightly different, then in the arc after Ill make that same character into a murderer who saws off people's head". What I am supposed to understand in that? So yeah, Umineko would just stop making sense in the same way that Erika tried to make it collapse in arc 6.

In fact to me Natsuhi culprit theory is much better then George culprit theory, as she's at least a partially tragic character and she really did things that are illegal, successfully too.

Ah yeah to add that too. A true pure evil culprit in Prime also indirectly taints others' reputation.
The Eva we are presented with looks partially heroic right now, or at least the story dwelved a lot into how she was a tragic and strong character who did what she thought best for Ange. But if that character for instance is hiding that her son murdered everyone, she loses all of that.

I'd try to tell myself that I still enjoyed Umineko along the way, but the result would practically render most of Umineko useless and contradictory.
If the story was telling us that we should be like Erika, that Battler was an antagonist and that Will got it all wrong (which is what such a culprit theory pretty much does), then Ryuukishi did a really bad job at it. It'd be like Umineko is about the glorification of murderers. Oh and of witch-hunters and goats in general.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Ive actually thought about that and yeah, it would make Erika a "good" character. The story in itself portrays Erika like a villain just like how Beatrice is portrayed as a villain at one point. The author is leading us in that direction so its easy to follow him.

There's a few scenes were we can actually see some of what probably drives Erika, like that scene with her lover. She basically thinks that a truth, no matter how hurtful, is better than living in (perceived) lies. Which is VERY similar to what Ange comes up with. Its just taken to the extremes to make us dislike or outright hate her.

Now about the person committing the crime and its motives. The game leads us to believe that if a human did it, then it had to be either gold or love. The game pushed hard on both of them but it seems that gold seems to be the winning option, which is really disappointing no matter how you looked at it. On the other hand, love would be disappointing as well, I mean seriously? Kill off your whole family because they wont let you marry a servant? So it pretty much leads to "If its a human, it HAS to be because of the gold"

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm aware of this, which is why he's wrong. He's letting his emotions dictate how he thinks Ange should run her life. Look, I'm not blaming Battler on an emotional level; but if he wants to claim the moral ground he demonstrates trying to possess in the narrative, he needs to be able to put his own desires and emotions aside and look at what is actually best for Ange, even if it means ignoring what he WANTS to do. We're given no sign that Battler has this sort of maturity or understanding of Ange's needs.

Alright, but you misunderstand me slightly. I wasn't talking about Battler being emotional; I was talking about his argument being an appeal to Ange's emotions.

[Renall]

I don't know if that's entirely true, but your issue is pretty fundamentally clear: Even if a person had a justification for murder, did they have a justification for MASS murder? And no matter what I do, no matter how hard I dig, I can't find one that seems even remotely believable to me.

Can I buy that someone might murder someone else? Sure. I could buy that maybe a murder could happen on Rokkenjima in 1986. Stranger things have happened. Can I buy everybody dying? No. That's just... it's insane, right? Even if something spun out of control, surely people can stop the madness at some point and realize things have to end and reality has to be faced. And then to just have everybody blow up... if somebody deliberately did that, they'd essentially be admitting that they just don't care anymore about these people they claim to love.

Basically, it seems like the culprit is either evil (if not Yasu, i.e. someone like Kyrie or George) or completely insane (if Yasu, or Natsuhi, or various others possibly). Or it was an accident. None of those are satisfying resolutions, but if one had to be chosen, I'd rather it be an accident than the alternatives.

So what's he going to pull out of his hat to make this work?

EDIT: Honestly the most plausible death to me in the whole of Umineko, assuming ep5's characterization of him is accurate, is Krauss committing suicide. That's way more reasonable to believe happening than anybody getting killed.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

I don't know if that's entirely true, but your issue is pretty fundamentally clear: Even if a person had a justification for murder, did they have a justification for MASS murder? And no matter what I do, no matter how hard I dig, I can't find one that seems even remotely believable to me.

Actually outside of insanity, can such a motivation even exist is what I wonder about. Outside of perhaps Maria, everyone on the island seems to have at least a basic sense of sanity. Understanding that murdering is wrong and tragic is something I'm sure even Yasu and Natsuhi fully understands. We cannot be dealing with someone who doesn't realize what they are doing, basically. So even using insanity as an excuse, I feel like the only answer as it stands would be "Someone just decided to do it for a reason or another which didn't particularily bring them much or anything and they even died in the process".

Can I buy that someone might murder someone else? Sure. I could buy that maybe a murder could happen on Rokkenjima in 1986. Stranger things have happened. Can I buy everybody dying? No. That's just... it's insane, right? Even if something spun out of control, surely people can stop the madness at some point and realize things have to end and reality has to be faced. And then to just have everybody blow up... if somebody deliberately did that, they'd essentially be admitting that they just don't care anymore about these people they claim to love.

Yeah that on the side brings up another problem. Tho it's interesting that the clock and bomb thing is never mentioned outside of arc 7's tea party, so I'm not sure how we should be taking it. Nonetheless the Kinzo who would think of blowing up the island, uncaring about his family and servants who just happens to be there, is exactly that: Someone who doesn't care about anyone else. I don't really see why we should try to have any sort of compassion or understanding for someone who feels like that. A prime murderer doing the same thing ends up in the same way. (Btw I'm comfortable with an alternative explosion theory then what arc 7 claims. It could simply be that Kinzo really did have all these explosives but never once thought of using them actually. It wouldn't be a very easy thing to dispose of I guess.)

Basically, it seems like the culprit is either evil (if not Yasu, i.e. someone like Kyrie or George) or completely insane (if Yasu, or Natsuhi, or various others possibly). Or it was an accident. None of those are satisfying resolutions, but if one had to be chosen, I'd rather it be an accident than the alternatives.

So what's he going to pull out of his hat to make this work?

Well I still think an accident so far is by far the best solution. At least to me it makes most of the story satisfying, tho my main problem with it is that I don't like to think arc 7 party is nothing else then a Bernkastel troll (and thus a Ryuukishi one).

EDIT: Honestly the most plausible death to me in the whole of Umineko, assuming ep5's characterization of him is accurate, is Krauss committing suicide. That's way more reasonable to believe happening than anybody getting killed.

That's really interesting.
But that gives rises to a new theory we didn't think of (it's absurd but hey so is a true culprit): Everyone committed suicide willingly with the bomb. Battler missed the event so he tried to drown and even get hit by a car since it didn't work. Eva didn't want to die, but after witnessing that she became pretty nuts. It would also explain her silence I guess.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Ive actually thought about that and yeah, it would make Erika a "good" character. The story in itself portrays Erika like a villain just like how Beatrice is portrayed as a villain at one point. The author is leading us in that direction so its easy to follow him.

If it's so easy to follow, then explain why both of these "villain who are really good guys" ends up in opposition and that Beatrice and Battler ends up basically killing Erika.
Since the two sides are saying and doing pretty much opposite things, I don't see how both could be right. If Erika is right, then Beatrice and Battler pretty much are wrong by default. That puts a weird spin on arc 1-2-3-4.

[Wanderer]

An accident doesn't explain why Eva and Battler survived.

Is lolgold really such an unbelievable motive? Especially for Kyrie and Rudolf who were already involved in shady financial stuff. It wouldn't take all that many changes to make the EP7 Tea Party believable.

[UsagiTenpura]

Since Eva was found in Kuwadorian I'd say she solved the epitaph and just happened to be outside of the area damaged by the explosion. Battler's escape seems to imply Yasu took him there. That much can be true in both mass-murderer and accidental explosion's cases.

Arc 7 depicts most of the adults in a very negative and selfish light, including Eva who's more bothered by erasing her crime then feeling any guilt for Natsuhi and who calls Rosa stupid after Kyrie shot her.

But maybe that was the really "good ending". They are all mass-murder candidates all with that potential, so that everyone's death is actually the good ending. Umineko turns into pulp fiction like story about sympathetic jerks who you still sorta don't want to see dying, but to whom murder is just another means to an end, not any different then cooking to have a meal.

Edit: Considering that the setting is based a lot on "And then there were none" I suppose I can't even seriously disregard that possibility.

[cronnoponno]

I would have a much easier time manipulating a kid into giving me 25$ out of the 100 $ he flashes around on the street, than I would killing him, stealing the money, burning his corpse to ashes and then scattering it in a lake, or if this method is traceable(I wouldn't know, but it would be hard to burn a corpse in most places without being noticed), using an untraceable method x that makes me a complete monster and is going way over the top.

Not that I'd actually do this, but come on.


lolgold is a shitty motive, any human being that is in their right mind would realize they get a damn good profit, enough to cover their troubles, compared to a 1 billion yen card which only covers their immediate expenses(which they would have got either way) if we're talking the ep 7 scenario.


I'm not saying Rudolph and Kyrie, or anyone else is totally innocent, but no matter how much of a dick you are, no matter how greedy you are, it should be obvious that you should get the best amount of money without risk. The yen card was perfect insurance for the gold, and for all they know the actual cold could have been fake.


Maybe I'm just too young to understand how great a big pile of ingots could be to yourself, as opposed to cooperating together to convert the gold into cash, while getting a large sum of money as insurance. I guess I'm too young to understand why mass murder and betrayal is worth just having the pile to yourself.


And on Rudolphs defense, I believe he does illegal business routines because, as he said, it's easy money.