[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

However, is Will's perspective biased? Certainly, he is in a blend of meta-world and game, so Fragments can appear as well as flashes of light for the Theatergoing Authority. However, all of the characters, the "game board elements", behave perfectly in character unless Bern controls their actions by moving their pieces. Beyond their actions being controlled, and the fact that both cats exist for Lion, there is absolutely no sign of anything supernatural with them. So, since there is no third-party 'observer' to tell Will what's going on, having the same person appear twice would violate the rules Bern set up.

Hold on there cowboy: What perspective? Will doesn't have a perspective. All I see is an omniscient third-person narrator. So now we can trust that for no reason? You can't have it both ways.

By the way, it's not out of character for Shannon and Kanon to appear together. They do so all the time. Just not around Battler. Will isn't Battler, nor is Will a first-person narrator. Why should I suddenly assume this third-person perspective is reliable for no reason when a first-person perspective wasn't reliable, also for no reason? And when we know third-person narration has been unreliable previously?

Oh, and I don't recall Bern controlling Shannon. Shannon didn't name Bern as the person controlling her. I'm calling that one out too. There ain't a damn bit of proof. Not a damn thing.

As for "no sign of anything supernatural," that's so blatantly contradicted as to not merit consideration.

These supposed "explanations" do not work. Shenanigans. Shenanigans, I say! It's a damn fraud at best and the worst writing imaginable at worst.

[AuraTwilight]

Man, I'm going to enjoy watching Renall shatter like glass when EP8 trolls the fuck out of him.

[TehChron]

Whatever happens, there will be wonderful fireworks.

[Renall]

I have a pretty strong idea that anything he thinks will work is going to make me roll my eyes so hard I break a few nerves in there.

[AuraTwilight]

and if it turns out to be the most amazing and satisfying ending ever imaginable?

[Renall]

I'll write Ryukishi a very nice letter.

I really mean that.

But the rest of you, the rest of you can go... write nice letters too.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Hold on there cowboy: What perspective? Will doesn't have a perspective. All I see is an omniscient third-person narrator. So now we can trust that for no reason? You can't have it both ways.

By the way, it's not out of character for Shannon and Kanon to appear together. They do so all the time. Just not around Battler. Will isn't Battler, nor is Will a first-person narrator. Why should I suddenly assume this third-person perspective is reliable for no reason when a first-person perspective wasn't reliable, also for no reason? And when we know third-person narration has been unreliable previously?

***

As for "no sign of anything supernatural," that's so blatantly contradicted as to not merit consideration.

These supposed "explanations" do not work. Shenanigans. Shenanigans, I say! It's a damn fraud at best and the worst writing imaginable at worst.

Renall, you should probably make sure you understand the work yourself before insulting it. I admit there's a fairly good chance that I'm mistaken, but I think the same thing goes for you.

Of course Will has a perspective. He has eyes, doesn't he? Is there any evidence that his eyes can see outright lies, besides standard meta-world elements? Is there any proof that we can't trust our perspective of how we see Will? So forget what we the player can see. Everything Will sees on the gameboard side of Bern's world (that is to say, minus the few rules Bern used to facilitate the 'game') is possible, except for the memories and behaviors of the characters. Remember that all flashbacks are a story being told Will, so we have to rely on the character's word instead of Will's own eyes. Their memories are conflicted because Bernkastel has merged the two worlds together (which is the whole point of the first half). Their behaviors are controlled at times, but each time, we are told that Bern was probably the one "moving the pieces".

Oh, and I don't recall Bern controlling Shannon. Shannon didn't name Bern as the person controlling her. I'm calling that one out too. There ain't a damn bit of proof. Not a damn thing.

I suggest you read that section again. There's a reason why we can tell that Bern is the person in control. Think about 'chess'.

[AuraTwilight]

Of course Will has a perspective. He has eyes, doesn't he?

That's an extremely lame excuse; By that logic, Meta-Battler has an excuse, and since Meta-Battler was "the detective" then every magic scene in Episodes 1-4 actually, objectively happened and are the truth.

I suggest you read that section again. There's a reason why Bern is the person in control. Think about 'chess'.

He's invoking an aspect of Author Theory. The person Shannon's referring to might not be "Bern the Gamemaster" but "Hachijou the Forgery author" or "Witch Hunter X" or "Tabloid Newspaper Z".

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's an extremely lame excuse; By that logic, Meta-Battler has an excuse, and since Meta-Battler was "the detective" then every magic scene in Episodes 1-4 actually, objectively happened and are the truth.

Not at all. There's a clear difference between Meta-Battler and Will. Meta-Battler was shown a game through a different person's perspective, where Will was actually talking directly to the pieces. It would be foolish to assume that all the same rules that applied to Battler will also apply to Will. And furthermore, Bernkastel, the supposed mystery-fan witch, has absolutely no reason to show lies directly to the detective. Quite the reverse, as Miss Marple would say.

Also, remember the reason for falsehoods being contained in Umineko. It's always because someone's perspective is mistaken or lying. For the first time, in EP7, we see a meta-character who isn't seeing the game through someone else's perspective, but through his own. So, while the Game Master could introduce falsehoods that match the mistakes or lies told by a normal observer, they can't do it when Will is playing the part of detective directly.

In other words, Will can't lie to us, and his viewpoint can't lie to him.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

He's invoking an aspect of Author Theory. The person Shannon's referring to might not be "Bern the Gamemaster" but "Hachijou the Forgery author" or "Witch Hunter X" or "Tabloid Newspaper Z".

So, because we don't have red text saying that it's Bern, it's somehow wrong to guess that it's Bern? When all the evidence so far points that way?

Remember, Renall isn't saying that my explanation's the wrong one, he's saying that it's self-contradictory. A lack of red text supporting every aspect of my argument doesn't make it self-contradictory.

[UsagiTenpura]

I'm wondering if the arc 7 chapel isn't some sort of Bern's equivalent of a golden land for her.

Chonotrig vs Renall is so an endless battle.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Of course Will has a perspective. He has eyes, doesn't he? Is there any evidence that his eyes can see outright lies, besides standard meta-world elements? Is there any proof that we can't trust our perspective of how we see Will? So forget what we the player can see.

But you used exactly the opposite of this argument when it was disadvantageous to you. So what you're saying is, it's reliable when it suits you, but it isn't reliable or might not be reliable when it doesn't.

Does that not bother you?

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

I have a pretty strong idea that anything he thinks will work is going to make me roll my eyes so hard I break a few nerves in there.

And I'll be here, with a good bottle of vodka with me, enjoying your (and other's) comments until I either:

a. Run out of vodka
b. Pass out
c. ????

[Renall]

I wouldn't expect a big show. If I'm dissatisfied with ep8 I'll probably write a scathing review in the ep8 thread about how badly the series tanked and then skedaddle, as there'd be nothing left for me to bother with.

I mean don't get me wrong, it'd be a mean review. But it'd just be my opinion.

[AuraTwilight]

Not at all. There's a clear difference between Meta-Battler and Will. Meta-Battler was shown a game through a different person's perspective, where Will was actually talking directly to the pieces. It would be foolish to assume that all the same rules that applied to Battler will also apply to Will. And furthermore, Bernkastel, the supposed mystery-fan witch, has absolutely no reason to show lies directly to the detective. Quite the reverse, as Miss Marple would say.

Who said anything about Bern LYING? There's a difference between lying and being INCORRECT.

Moreover, Will does magic and shit. His viewpoint isn't worth jack squat, even if he does talk directly to the pieces. The fact that the gameboard isn't any sort of actual "world" is basically a flag saying "all bets are off."

Also, remember the reason for falsehoods being contained in Umineko. It's always because someone's perspective is mistaken or lying. For the first time, in EP7, we see a meta-character who isn't seeing the game through someone else's perspective, but through his own. So, while the Game Master could introduce falsehoods that match the mistakes or lies told by a normal observer, they can't do it when Will is playing the part of detective directly.

That's a very convincing argument based on rules you absolutely made up, there.

So, because we don't have red text saying that it's Bern, it's somehow wrong to guess that it's Bern? When all the evidence so far points that way?

Saying "It might be or is probably Bern" is one thing. Saying "it's absolutely Bern and that's a fact" is completely and totally different.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

I'm wondering if the arc 7 chapel isn't some sort of Bern's equivalent of a golden land for her.

Would you mind elaborating on this idea? I can't judge it yet, but it seems interesting, at least.

BY THE WAY, I'd just like to point out that Bern explicitly said that she didn't give Will the Detective Authority, but the Theatregoer's Authority. We can't really expect Will to follow the same rules as Battler or Erika, whatever form that might take.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

But you used exactly the opposite of this argument when it was disadvantageous to you. So what you're saying is, it's reliable when it suits you, but it isn't reliable or might not be reliable when it doesn't.

Does that not bother you?

Not at all, since there's no contradiction. My argument is that EP1-6 are the story as piece-Battler would tell it at the end of each game, except where he knows very little (or chooses to say very little, if he's not the detective), the Game Master can fill in the blanks. Since piece-Battler doesn't see everything, the Game Master can fill in the blanks with lies.

However, in EP7, we have a completely different game. Will seems to be both the piece-detective and the meta-player at once, thanks to the merged world Bern created. As the detective, I think we can assume that he won't lie in his testimony. Since piece-Battler doesn't seem to be around in this world, I think we can also assume that we've left the pattern of "what Battler sees or hears is the truth, anything else might be lies", because that would mean everything is a lie and there's no point reading the game at all (and more importantly, no point for Bern to make the game). So, there is a good argument for saying that whatever Will sees is the truth, except for the additional rules Bern added and the fact that two worlds are blended together.

And again, I'm not saying this as a proof of my theory. I'm just proposing a theory that has no contradictions that I can see, and that seems to be supported by quite a lot of evidence.

[AuraTwilight]

But you're using one unproven statement to support another; Besides, the thing about Battler giving his testimony thing becomes problematic because in EP5, Battler isn't guaranteed to speak the truth, and in EP6, he's the one spinning lies. So...what makes EP7 different? The lack of Battler? Because that's more or less how EP5 went, and that game's Detective dropped Red Truths and used what was basically magic and talked to meta-beings on the gameboard.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Not at all, since there's no contradiction.

There is a contradiction. You have used exactly opposite logic in the past to dismiss a situation of this exact degree of ambiguity. You have now turned about and applied to this similar situation. Anything else you have said is nothing more than your opinion, most of it based on personal supposition drawn from nothing I can fathom.

That is a textbook contradiction, unless you have actually changed your mind about the previous situation. Am I to take that from your shift in position?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

There is a contradiction. You have used exactly opposite logic in the past to dismiss a situation of this exact degree of ambiguity. You have now turned about and applied to this similar situation. Anything else you have said is nothing more than your opinion, most of it based on personal supposition drawn from nothing I can fathom.

That is a textbook contradiction, unless you have actually changed your mind about the previous situation. Am I to take that from your shift in position?

I think what he's inferring is that his theory for episode 5 and 6 was that Peice Battler was an accomplice in those episodes because he realized his sin. Thus he was keeping up the lie for her. While Will is isn't biased and wouldn't do that.

[chronotrig]

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But you're using one unproven statement to support another;

Of course. Has any Author theory been proven true by any proven statements (since my theory is an Author theory of a sort)? Not that I've seen, anyway. I think the goal of this game isn't to prove your answer right, but to find an answer that explains as many things as possible, rejecting or reworking answers that contain contradictions. This is also a valid form of reasoning, especially in areas like science, where it's impossible to prove most things with 100% absolute certainty until you test them with experiments (open the cat box/read the answers at the end of the book).

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Besides, the thing about Battler giving his testimony thing becomes problematic because in EP5, Battler isn't guaranteed to speak the truth, and in EP6, he's the one spinning lies.

Yes, it is problematic, and this, along with the meta-detective being able to use red text, is where I think the "scribbling on a chessboard" analogy comes in. This wasn't the way the game was meant to be played. The Knox rules mean there must be some way to reach the truth eventually, but it can be a convoluted one.

Anything else you have said is nothing more than your opinion, most of it based on personal supposition drawn from nothing I can fathom.

Do you really think it likely that a person willing to take the time to translate a game as huge as this would accept a theory without reason? Well, you may be right there, in a sense. Until recently, I only favored that theory because of the neat way it managed to explain a huge chunk of the game (something it does do, if you accept it and follow it through).

Of course, there'd have to be a reason for why this should be the case, and I only just figured it out while re-reading EP7. Take this phrase that's used a million times: "how many people does it take to create a world?" We now know:

• It takes two people to make a world: one to tell a story (like Maria's Beatrice) and one to listen to the story and accept it (like Maria herself).
• A "world" is the setting of a story told by one person to another
• The person telling the story knows that they just made it up, so the world really only exists in the mind of the listener who accepts it.

You probably see where I'm going with this:

• The Rokkenjima murders are a story Beatrice is telling Battler.
• The "world" she's creating is the false timeline for the magical murders.
• And this "world" only really exists in the mind of the Battler, who accepts it at the end.
• So, if this "world" represents each game, then the game is the thing that exists in the mind of piece-Battler.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Do you really think it likely that a person willing to take the time to translate a game as huge as this would accept a theory without reason? Well, you may be right there, in a sense.

We seem to be making our back-and-forth more efficient all of a sudden.

Until recently, I only favored that theory because of the neat way it managed to explain a huge chunk of the game (something it does do, if you accept it and follow it through).

In other words, if you make tremendous and unfounded leaps of "logic." I have read your theory.

Of course, there'd have to be a reason for why this should be the case, and I only just figured it out while translating EP7. Take this phrase that's used a million times: "how many people does it take to create a world?" We now know:

• It takes two people to make a world: one to tell a story (like Maria's Beatrice) and one to listen to the story and accept it (like Maria herself).
• A "world" is the setting of a story told by one person to another
• The person telling the story knows that they just made it up, so the world really only exists in the mind of the listener who accepts it.

Close enough for government work.

You probably see where I'm going with this:

• The Rokkenjima murders are a story Beatrice is telling Battler.
• The "world" she's creating is the false timeline for the magical murders.
• And this "world" only really exists in the mind of the Battler, who accepts it at the end.
• So, if this "world" represents each game, then the game is the thing that exists in the mind of Battler.

While I agree that the story conveyed through the various in-universe fictions is specifically directed toward Battler, there is no explicit guarantee that Battler himself ever read them (I think it's probable that he's alive and did so, but still, can I prove that?). What we do know is that they are also generally directed. So we are looking at a "world" of more than two people here, at least by apparent intent.

I also fundamentally disagree with the circuitous knowledge used to twist ep5 and squeeze blood from that stone where none is to be had. It's silly, as silly as doubting the veracity of Will's observations, but you can't do one and then not do the other, or vice-versa. And you are doing that.

I really don't know what else to say. You can't discuss things with a person who cherry-picks when they will hold to their premises. I presume you don't mean to do that, but that is exactly what you have done.