[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

It does, that's the point of what happened to him after the game had ended. Just because he gave up before doesn't mean anything, the game continues and what he sees is still objective until the end of the game. After that, then all kinds of crap can happen.

...You keep misinterpreting what I say and stating what I mean. XD This is like the third time today.

No doubt there is "narrative necessity" in Battler being wrong, but what I am asking is why there is a correlation with Battler's state of mind and what happens on the game board. I am suggesting that it's a causal relationship. I do not understand what you meant when you called it a thematic relationship.

I'm saying there is no causal relationship. It only lines up to tell the story the way Ryukishi wants to. When it comes to metafictional narrative, you have to consider that there's no "in-universe" reason for things lining up.

I'm not necessarily saying that Eva did or didn't shoot Battler, but that the way that he witnessed her shooting him makes no sense if she were innocent.

And I'm saying she did. She snapped, yo.

Erika never relinquished her Detective Authority in EP6 because she never actually had it, only the option to take it (which was later invalidated). In fact, EP6 implies that she can't relinquish it once she's taken it, else it would not have interfered with her plan to become the culprit.

This is arguable at best. Ryukishi never really made his "rules" very clear, and the line of reasoning that one can't 'stop being the detective' midgame is invalidated by the fucking retroactive nonsense that litters EP6.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm saying there is no causal relationship. It only lines up to tell the story the way Ryukishi wants to. When it comes to metafictional narrative, you have to consider that there's no "in-universe" reason for things lining up.

So Turn in it's original state featured Battler meeting Beatrice and Kinzo in the study? In its original state Battler played The Detective until he gave up and got eaten by the goats?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And I'm saying she did. She snapped, yo.

Yeah I know you're saying that. What I want to know is whether you think the scene where Eva shot Battler was accurately depicted or not. Did her admission to being the culprit actually happen or was that Battler's viewpoint being unreliable?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This is arguable at best. Ryukishi never really made his "rules" very clear, and the line of reasoning that one can't 'stop being the detective' midgame is invalidated by the fucking retroactive nonsense that litters EP6.

You sure make strong assertions about how it works considering that the rules aren't clear. It undermines your argument as much as mine when you say things like that.

In any case, Erika never had Detective Authority in EP6 anyway.

[UsagiTenpura]

Heh, depending on how exactly said rules of the game works, I wouldn't be surprised if Eva didn't shoot Battler...

Meta-battle where Battler failled to expose the truth, then suddenly goes and declare "Eva you are the culprit" and he witness in his face Eva Beatrice becoming Eva.
It could be very well that because he believed/accepted that being to be "Eva", it simply appeared to him that way. It's not like the narration itself ever mentioned that it was Eva who shot him.

Now I'm not saying this is how it works necessarily, but it makes more sense to me then "splitting hair" and trying to find "special rules" to explain every single variations from the norms (such as getting into a bothersome explanation as to why Eva shot Battler which we currently have to pull out of nowhere).

Generally speaking, I have to say that, whoever is trying to see Umineko as 100% a "Mystery" ends up having to make too many exceptions.
If this was science, that would sure make the side promoting "mystery" fail and sound like creationists ^^...
There are just too many weird things, like a time bubble thing around the chapel in arc 7, that Mystery doesn't even begin to explain.

Also it sounds to me like trying to explain everything using a mystery view ends up with way too many characters being liars, and/or totally out of touch with reality, and finally comes the GTA gold motive to slaughter everyone. I think "considering Umineko a mystery 100%" and "looking down on a large part/all of the family" goes together hand in hand, really.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

...You keep misinterpreting what I say and stating what I mean. XD This is like the third time today.

That's because you say it clearly the first time, then you say something that makes me think that you're misinterpreting something! You know what, screw this, I ban you from talking for the rest of this topic!

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This is arguable at best. Ryukishi never really made his "rules" very clear, and the line of reasoning that one can't 'stop being the detective' midgame is invalidated by the fucking retroactive nonsense that litters EP6.

If I can remember, Battler, Bern, and Erika agreed that she wasn't allowed to use Detective's Authority for the rest of the game.

From what I understand of the game, it uses the definition of "detective" in the general sense as anyone who acts as the point of view for the audience and/or does the detecting (detecting being they observe crime scenes and provide conclusions for the reader). In that sense, he was the detective for the games. In terms of Detective's Authority, I believe it is supposed to be a rule that defines the role of the detective in its purest form which includes the rights held by a detective. With that, Battler and Erika represent to different interpretations of the Detective: A "Hard- Boiled Noir" Detective and a "Traditional" Detective. For those of you who don't know, Hard- Boiled Noir mysteries are mysteries that don't have a particular "detective" rather than a person who acts a the readers point of view in a recalling of the events of the crime. Check Wikipedia.

[AuraTwilight]

So Turn in it's original state featured Battler meeting Beatrice and Kinzo in the study? In its original state Battler played The Detective until he gave up and got eaten by the goats?

Or he gets eaten by goats regardless of whether he gives or not. EP1 had a shitload of golden butterflies for someone with an objective viewpoint...

Yeah I know you're saying that. What I want to know is whether you think the scene where Eva shot Battler was accurately depicted or not. Did her admission to being the culprit actually happen or was that Battler's viewpoint being unreliable?

I'm not sure it really matters; Battler jumps to the conclusion that Eva was the culprit before she even opened her mouth to speak. For all we know Eva was like "Yea sure, whatever, murderer. Kthxbai."

You sure make strong assertions about how it works considering that the rules aren't clear. It undermines your argument as much as mine when you say things like that.

In any case, Erika never had Detective Authority in EP6 anyway.

The game was underway BEFORE Erika relinquished it, but she did so before there were any murders. So...I think I'm more right than wrong, here.

If I can remember, Battler, Bern, and Erika agreed that she wasn't allowed to use Detective's Authority for the rest of the game.

I'm aware. I'm of the mindset that once given up the Detective's Authority can never be reclaimed, but it can be surrendered at any time.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Incidentally, it also makes no sense if Shannon/Kanon is the culprit using a red trick to avoid death declarations. Why would Eva admit to being the culprit if she isn't? Even if she felt she needed to shoot Battler, why play along? Surely she can't still think it's all a game...

Yeah that's what I'm saying. The actual culprit was up in the air, but Eva became the culprit in EP3 because Battler thought she was.

It's almost as if the Player's mind writes the ending. Happened in EP2, EP3, and kind of in EP5 and EP8 too (when we the reader got to choose Ange's disposition ourselves). EP1 and EP4 are compatible with the idea, too. EP6 is N/A and I dunno how to approach EP7 on the issue, or if it even should be.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Heh, depending on how exactly said rules of the game works, I wouldn't be surprised if Eva didn't shoot Battler...
~~
It could be very well that because he believed/accepted that being to be "Eva", it simply appeared to him that way. It's not like the narration itself ever mentioned that it was Eva who shot him.

Yes, I kind of am trying to go this direction.

The thing is that the scene in question appears on the Gameboard, or at least seems to. Now, since the Meta-World is so fluid you could say the scene really didn't play out on the Gameboard but separately in the Meta-World, but you still have to wonder why it took on a Gameboard setting. Here are the Gameboard interpretations I can think of (as always, feel free to add/amend):

• The Gameboard is generated by a reader's interpretation of a story. Everything we are presented is a combination of the writer's story and the reader's interpretation of it.
• The Gameboard shows the story exactly as written by the Gamemaster, except that some scenes that look like they are on the Gameboard really aren't. They are some kind of meta. Examples being the final "Gameboard" scenes of EP2 and EP3. However, this interpretation begs the question: What of what we see on the "Gameboard" is on the real Gameboard and how can we tell what isn't?
• The Gameboard shows the story exactly as written by the Gamemaster. Period. Goats really got to eat Battler at the end of Turn. Solve that one, Mystery bitches!

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Or he gets eaten by goats regardless of whether he gives or not. EP1 had a shitload of golden butterflies for someone with an objective viewpoint...

Battler never saw any of them, except in the lolanime. Anyhow, isn't our disagreement not about whether Battler's viewpoint is reliable, but why it sometimes seemingly isn't?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm not sure it really matters; Battler jumps to the conclusion that Eva was the culprit before she even opened her mouth to speak. For all we know Eva was like "Yea sure, whatever, murderer. Kthxbai."

I just don't see that from "*cackle*cackle*cackle*......, ahahahahahaahah!! It took you too long to notice, Battler-kuun!!"

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The game was underway BEFORE Erika relinquished it, but she did so before there were any murders. So...I think I'm more right than wrong, here.

The discussion you are referring to did come pretty late, but it was about her not making a Proclamation, not about her relinquishing one.

Like what Ernestel is saying, I don't think being "The Detective" automatically means that you have Detective Authority. D.A. was something introduced in EP5 and not made clearly relevant to apply to Battler throughout the earlier episodes.

[orangejuicetang]

didn't Erika have to claim the Detective's Authority in order to use it, like it wasn't some passive effect but rather some privilege to be activated?

Especially since there was that bit in Ep 6. where she has to make the detective's proclamation (I'm the detective) before she could use the detective's authority?

[AuraTwilight]

Yeah that's what I'm saying. The actual culprit was up in the air, but Eva became the culprit in EP3 because Battler thought she was.

If the player's beliefs change the gameboard and the truth of that gameboard, then this entire exercise is meaningless because everything is shaped by your impressions. What's the point in pursuing the truth if it's mutable?

Yes, I kind of am trying to go this direction.

The thing is that the scene in question appears on the Gameboard, or at least seems to. Now, since the Meta-World is so fluid you could say the scene really didn't play out on the Gameboard but separately in the Meta-World, but you still have to wonder why it took on a Gameboard setting. Here are the Gameboard interpretations I can think of (as always, feel free to add/amend):

The Gameboard is generated by a reader's interpretation of a story. Everything we are presented is a combination of the writer's story and the reader's interpretation of it.
The Gameboard shows the story exactly as written by the Gamemaster, except that some scenes that look like they are on the Gameboard really aren't. They are some kind of meta. Examples being the final "Gameboard" scenes of EP2 and EP3. However, this interpretation begs the question: What of what we see on the "Gameboard" is on the real Gameboard and how can we tell what isn't?
The Gameboard shows the story exactly as written by the Gamemaster. Period. Goats really got to eat Battler at the end of Turn. Solve that one, Mystery bitches!

I can see already that my own personal viewpoint isn't represented on here; atleast, if it is, it's being grouped under wording I don't like.

I'M of the mind that, while the fantasy scenes aren't "real" (OR necessarily "Meta"), they are effectively immutable; Battler only controls "Battler", and any changes in the Gameboard are either done by Beatrice changing her mind about stuff, or the effects "Battler" legitimately has as a character.

Both of which seem to be VERY little. I've yet to see a single reason to believe that Battler's believe in the Eva culprit theory "caused it to happen" or anything similar, seeing as how Battler only buys into it because Beatrice presented it to him first.

Battler never saw any of them, except in the lolanime. Anyhow, isn't our disagreement not about whether Battler's viewpoint is reliable, but why it sometimes seemingly isn't?

The VN DOES imply it without being as overt as the anime. He wigs out a little over things he thinks he's percieving; shadows and phantasms in the dark and shit. This should not happen if his viewpoint of Objective, unless there are specific instances where it is not, such as post-Midnight, when he and everyone else is technically Kaboom.

I just don't see that from "*cackle*cackle*cackle*......, ahahahahahaahah!! It took you too long to notice, Battler-kuun!!"

Prove that she ACTUALLY said that, OR prove that Eva wasn't always the culprit of EP3 regardless of what Battler personally believes. Until you can do that, this idea of yours is only a hypothesis.

The discussion you are referring to did come pretty late, but it was about her not making a Proclamation, not about her relinquishing one.

Well, she doesn't physically announce it, but she does actively FOREGO announcing it too. I don't think she has to actively accept it in any way, given that she never had to do so in EP5.

Like what Ernestel is saying, I don't think being "The Detective" automatically means that you have Detective Authority. D.A. was something introduced in EP5 and not made clearly relevant to apply to Battler throughout the earlier episodes.

Dlanor disagrees, saying that since he was the Detective in past games his viewpoint was reliable. Infact, Battler has to use Erika's status as the Detective to PROVE that he could hallucinate in EP5. It's a major topic in the fight.

Battler doesn't do all the kickass ultra tricks Erika does because he simply never was informed he could (which might have to do with Beatrice's personal interpretations of fairness, which Bern and Lambda step over.)

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If the player's beliefs change the gameboard and the truth of that gameboard, then this entire exercise is meaningless because everything is shaped by your impressions. What's the point in pursuing the truth if it's mutable?

Also, what's the point of Will giving "correct" answers if it's just, like, his opinion, man?

[UsagiTenpura]

This sure comes to mind...

What on earth could such a maze with bad affinity with me be…?
There’s only one thing I can think of.
In other words, …… it is a maze where it’s meaningless to write maps.
Would it be alright to say that, for example, it is a maze of indefinite shape that constantly changes the shape, flexibly?

Will's correct answers didn't have details, they just pretty much explained how things were possible by human means. Sorta like answering a riddle more then a mystery imo.

Also, I thought the Erika thing made it sorta clear that even if the piece's view is reliable, the meta-interpretation of it can be falsified.

Hell if you want to solve it as simple as that, just claim that whenever Battler sees something he shouldn't see, it wasn't from his POV that the scene was seen. There's no rule that says that someone can't be seeing a fantasy Battler, that all while meta-Battler thinks it's his piece still.

I'd rather accept that "reader technique" was used as hinted by Bern in arc 8 which imo implies exactly things like a reader's interpretation.

[AuraTwilight]

Also, what's the point of Will giving "correct" answers if it's just, like, his opinion, man?

Pretty much. Beatrice has no reason insulting or being disappointed in Battler if reality is effected by what he believes. He'll be inevitably trapped into a self-referential loop of confirmation bias; he'll be fucked from the starting gate.

Will's correct answers didn't have details, they just pretty much explained how things were possible by human means. Sorta like answering a riddle more then a mystery imo.

He still ANSWERED them in ways that leads to single specific answers. It's not like he said "Some asshole used a gun" or something.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

This sure comes to mind...


Will's correct answers didn't have details, they just pretty much explained how things were possible by human means. Sorta like answering a riddle more then a mystery imo.

That's what I began to think as well. If what Bern said is true, then there is no definite answer but, when given clues such as the Red Truth, you can come to a supposed answer. Then it basically goes back to the point where we have to use the clues given to us to find answers.

[UsagiTenpura]

Well I really think Ryuukishi made his game so it's impossible to have a single truth crushing all other truths. It's sorta what Dlanor and Battler were talking about in arc 5 imo. Then he mentioned in interviews that he weaved multiple tales for his stories.

Considering how Battler said he would enjoy Erika's twisted logic, I take it that's pretty much what Ryuukishi enjoyed rather then a story where he can come out and prove either everyone or nearly everyone wrong.

It's like the riddle in arc 6, even if there's an answer written on the back of the card it's possible to reach other answers, and even possibly better answers.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yea, so? He GAVE UP on fighting the witch and infact accepted her existence. He stopped fighting for the human side, and you don't think that has consequences?

If you think about it, Battler never really chased the truth. He was always chasing for some phantom (i.e. the 19th person), since he adamantly refused to place any blame on his relatives. The only time he truly did it was during EP4 and that was solely to kill Beatrice. Once he reached the truth of the game, he remained doing what he always did - i.e. protecting the integrity of his relatives. So, he never really stopped fighting for the human side. In fact, I think you could say only by switching to the magic side he was able to actually protect the human side, since otherwise, by exposing the truth he'd have harmed the human side even though he'd have been able to kill the witch. All the same, Beatrice died like 3 times in Chiru anyway.

Anyhow, I think this whole deal is the point of truth and magic in Umineko. Truth is basically a magic killer. So, if you want to protect the magic, then you must seal the truth. You have many references to this. Like say, Ronove's "love is an illusion" or Erika killing the magic of her love by chasing the truth. Maria and Kinzo are the biggest examples of truth and magic.

[Renall]

Why should Battler protect the integrity of the person or persons who are actually guilty? If anyone is.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by orangejuicetang

didn't Erika have to claim the Detective's Authority in order to use it, like it wasn't some passive effect but rather some privilege to be activated?

Especially since there was that bit in Ep 6. where she has to make the detective's proclamation (I'm the detective) before she could use the detective's authority?

You're thinking of EP5 when she used it to enter the cousins' room. Come to think of it, she did declare herself detective once in EP6, but it was in the same statement where she said she was the 18th person on the island.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If the player's beliefs change the gameboard and the truth of that gameboard, then this entire exercise is meaningless because everything is shaped by your impressions. What's the point in pursuing the truth if it's mutable?

Ask RK07. He presents truth as mutable in more ways than just that.

Originally Posted by Renall

Also, what's the point of Will giving "correct" answers if it's just, like, his opinion, man?

The Gameboard that we see is a version of the Gamemaster's story "distorted" by the Player's interpretation. It's kind of like a game of telephone from Beatrice to Battler to us-the-readers. Or you can look at it as something similar to the "Observer effect" in physics: A story cannot be read without interpreting (changing) it. Either way, the truth contained in the story's origin remains untouched. Even if we cannot observe it directly it does not mean we should give up on it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I can see already that my own personal viewpoint isn't represented on here; atleast, if it is, it's being grouped under wording I don't like.

Sorry. Still trying to understand the nuances of your position. Not sure what your complaint about the 3rd option is, other than to say Battler can at least influence his own piece.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Prove that she ACTUALLY said that, OR prove that Eva wasn't always the culprit of EP3 regardless of what Battler personally believes. Until you can do that, this idea of yours is only a hypothesis.

Of course it's a hypothesis. A lot of the reasons I have for this interpretation comes from mountains of thematic evidence, such as Featherine insisting Ange reading to her makes the story more interesting.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, she doesn't physically announce it, but she does actively FOREGO announcing it too. I don't think she has to actively accept it in any way, given that she never had to do so in EP5.

Huh? Bernkastel made the Proclamation in EP5, yet a major plot point of EP6 was that no Proclamation was made. There is not a thing in EP5 or EP6 that suggests that Detective status can be relinquished.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Dlanor disagrees, saying that since he was the Detective in past games his viewpoint was reliable. Infact, Battler has to use Erika's status as the Detective to PROVE that he could hallucinate in EP5. It's a major topic in the fight.

Yeah I know that Red. The thing is, I don't think your theory fits well with it either because she says "Up until now you have been the DETECTIVE." which meshes poorly with your idea that Battler's detective status changes.

Basically, if we condense her whole statement we can come up with: Throughout the first 4 games Battler had a reliable viewpoint. which is pretty hard to justify with the end of Turn. Maybe it's that the "game" itself ends as soon as the Player, or perhaps the Player's piece, comes to a conclusion; in which case it doesn't matter if it's 24:00 or not. What we get then is not part of the game proper (although it may use the game board), but an ending the Player imagines/interprets/creates/writes. This is also what Erika did in EP5 and is why that game ended so early.

Originally Posted by Renall

Why should Battler protect the integrity of the person or persons who are actually guilty? If anyone is.

You know, I'm really really beginning to think that it was Battler who killed everyone somehow. He was fooled by Yasu's carefully orchestrated murder game and couldn't trust people and his paranoia somehow triggered the real killings. And I think this may be why Meta-Battler has this complex about not wanting to suspect or blame anyone (even people he hardly knows, like Gohda or Kanon)... because that's exactly what he did on Rokkenjima and it's what got everyone killed. It truly was the right thing to just believe in the witch.

Also, it makes the lolamnesia a lot more believable if he learned that he killed his whole family out of a misunderstanding. That'd fuck me up for sure.

Anyway, just a pet theory. Hard to explain how it could happen.

[AuraTwilight]

Ask RK07. He presents truth as mutable in more ways than just that.

"Subjective" and "Mutable" are not the same thing, Wanderer.

The Gameboard that we see is a version of the Gamemaster's story "distorted" by the Player's interpretation. It's kind of like a game of telephone from Beatrice to Battler to us-the-readers. Or you can look at it as something similar to the "Observer effect" in physics: A story cannot be read without interpreting (changing) it. Either way, the truth contained in the story's origin remains untouched. Even if we cannot observe it directly it does not mean we should give up on it.

This is what I am contesting. You cannot use your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis.

Sorry. Still trying to understand the nuances of your position. Not sure what your complaint about the 3rd option is, other than to say Battler can at least influence his own piece.

Er...isn't the third option the one where everything is exactly how its' portrayed, fantasy scene included?

Of course it's a hypothesis. A lot of the reasons I have for this interpretation comes from mountains of thematic evidence, such as Featherine insisting Ange reading to her makes the story more interesting.

That doesn't really follow. Ange doesn't really change the text as she reads it. What she DOES do, however, is stop to ask questions, make commentary, and vocalize her ideas and theories as she goes along...which is pretty enjoyable to writers. To me, hearing that from readers is like crack cocaine.

Huh? Bernkastel made the Proclamation in EP5, yet a major plot point of EP6 was that no Proclamation was made. There is not a thing in EP5 or EP6 that suggests that Detective status can be relinquished.

More like Erika has the Detective's Authority about as soon as she exists as a character. Either way, temporal-meta-fuckery makes trying to pin this down kind of a fool's errand.

Yeah I know that Red. The thing is, I don't think your theory fits well with it either because she says "Up until now you have been the DETECTIVE." which meshes poorly with your idea that Battler's detective status changes.

...That's not what my idea is. My idea is that the Detective status doesn't apply in certain situations such as the end of the game (which is like a 'cutscene') or if Battler basically refuses to play.

Basically, if we condense her whole statement we can come up with: Throughout the first 4 games Battler had a reliable viewpoint. which is pretty hard to justify with the end of Turn. Maybe it's that the "game" itself ends as soon as the Player, or perhaps the Player's piece, comes to a conclusion; in which case it doesn't matter if it's 24:00 or not. What we get then is not part of the game proper (although it may use the game board), but an ending the Player imagines/interprets/creates/writes. This is also what Erika did in EP5 and is why that game ended so early.

Well, Erika made a conscious, deliberate request to Lambda and Bern to pause the game and do Meta bullshit. I'm not sure it counts. In any case, I don't think the 'ending cutscenes' count as part of the 'game'.

You know, I'm really really beginning to think that it was Battler who killed everyone somehow. He was fooled by Yasu's carefully orchestrated murder game and couldn't trust people and his paranoia somehow triggered the real killings. And I think this may be why Meta-Battler has this complex about not wanting to suspect or blame anyone (even people he hardly knows, like Gohda or Kanon)... because that's exactly what he did on Rokkenjima and it's what got everyone killed. It truly was the right thing to just believe in the witch.

Also, it makes the lolamnesia a lot more believable if he learned that he killed his whole family out of a misunderstanding. That'd fuck me up for sure.

Anyway, just a pet theory. Hard to explain how it could happen.

Welcome to Battler Culprit Theory!

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

"Subjective" and "Mutable" are not the same thing, Wanderer.

Newer truth rewrites older truth. Truth is subjective, thus is subject to change based on new information, thus is mutable.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This is what I am contesting. You cannot use your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis.

Follow context please. I'm explaining how my hypothesis functions and how it doesn't lead to Unineko being a meaningless exercise, not trying to prove it (in this particular case).

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Er...isn't the third option the one where everything is exactly how its' portrayed, fantasy scene included?

Only the ones that were observed by someone with a reliable viewpoint. So basically just the end of Turn where Battler gets eaten by goats. (Just explaining, at this point I see that you probably disagree with this).

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

More like Erika has the Detective's Authority about as soon as she exists as a character. Either way, temporal-meta-fuckery makes trying to pin this down kind of a fool's errand.

Not complicated to me. Player makes a proclamation and their piece has Detective abilities (and restrictions) for that game. Otherwise they don't. Done deal.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

...That's not what my idea is. My idea is that the Detective status doesn't apply in certain situations such as the end of the game (which is like a 'cutscene') or if Battler basically refuses to play.

Well, Erika made a conscious, deliberate request to Lambda and Bern to pause the game and do Meta bullshit. I'm not sure it counts. In any case, I don't think the 'ending cutscenes' count as part of the 'game'.

This thought pattern was supposed to be covered by:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

The Gameboard shows the story exactly as written by the Gamemaster, except that some scenes that look like they are on the Gameboard really aren't. They are some kind of meta. Examples being the final "Gameboard" scenes of EP2 and EP3. However, this interpretation begs the question: What of what we see on the "Gameboard" is on the real Gameboard and how can we tell what isn't?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Welcome to Battler Culprit Theory!

Hmm well I've never heard of a Battler Culprit theorist say it was based on an accident or misunderstanding of Yasu's murder game.

[Murder game being just too real=> Paranoia=> Real killings] just makes so much sense to me.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Hmm well I've never heard of a Battler Culprit theorist say it was based on an accident or misunderstanding of Yasu's murder game.

[Murder game being just too real=> Paranoia=> Real killings] just makes so much sense to me.

Heh, I admit that the thing about "Because Battler didn't believe" everyone went to hell instead of the golden land could very well imply that...

Not that I like the idea.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why should Battler protect the integrity of the person or persons who are actually guilty? If anyone is.

For the same reason Maria kept on protecting the integrity of her mother even though she was quite clearly a shitty person?

If no one was guilty, then there wasn't really anything to hide. He could have disclosed the truths without having to add rubbish, because there would have been no actual reason to keep any cat box. If he really wanted to give them a happy ending, he could have said they all went to heaven and that's it. However, the cat box clearly existed to conceal several things.

As I've said, during the 1st 4 episodes, we saw Battler resolute to find the culprit, bring it to justice and save his family. However, in the same fashion, he was reluctant to doubt any of his relatives. So, if in addition to a culprit (assuming whatever happened in R. Prime was planned) there were other killers - basically, anything similar to what we saw on EP7's Tea Party or even on Bern's game in EP8, then Battler had rather good reasons to keep the truth concealed.

If he could keep the sins concealed, he could protect the illusion everyone was a good happy person doing things happy families do whenever they go to grandpa's.