[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Where is her motive clued in Episodes 1-4?

Beatrice doesn't know her motive, so she never made any specific clues. However, we can guess that Nanjo's granddaughter would be receiving the money from Beatrice's envelopes only if that crime succeeded, so we have one theory there.

Also, strictly speaking, Ryuukishi never specifically said we needed to be able to guess the motive in EP1-4. He only started saying that after EP5, when referring to Battler's 'revelation'. By the way, I'm not sure that Battler knew. If so, then he'll certainly fail his test in EP6, which would give us a reason to have EP7.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Beatrice doesn't know her motive, so she never made any specific clues. However, we can guess that Nanjo's granddaughter would be receiving the money from Beatrice's envelopes only if that crime succeeded, so we have one theory there.

Also, strictly speaking, Ryuukishi never specifically said we needed to be able to guess the motive in EP1-4. He only started saying that after EP5, when referring to Battler's 'revelation'. By the way, I'm not sure that Battler knew. If so, then he'll certainly fail his test in EP6, which would give us a reason to have EP7.

Whole thing is that Gold Truth is apparently a truth that can be used by anyone who knows the final answer (according to an interview). Therefore Battler knows the final answer. There was a game cap from EP 5 that said Battler figured out the motive as well from just EP 1-4.

And why does Lambda need to represent anything, along with Bern? Neither have never appeared on the gameboard, only in the meta world. Eva-Beatrice in EP 3 is a better representation of a second culprit, as she essentially takes over all murders. As for faking the voice, Lambda could have easily been joking. Taking her seriously all the time isn't something recommended, since she does like joking and acting like a ditz. Plus if she really can fake voices that means all the calls are fantasy anyway, which I highly doubt.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Marion

Whole thing is that Gold Truth is apparently a truth that can be used by anyone who knows the final answer (according to an interview). Therefore Battler knows the final answer. There was a game cap from EP 5 that said Battler figured out the motive as well from just EP 1-4.

And why does Lambda need to represent anything, along with Bern? Neither have never appeared on the gameboard, only in the meta world. Eva-Beatrice in EP 3 is a better representation of a second culprit, as she essentially takes over all murders. As for faking the voice, Lambda could have easily been joking. Taking her seriously all the time isn't something recommended, since she does like joking and acting like a ditz. Plus if she really can fake voices that means all the calls are fantasy anyway, which I highly doubt.

Um, I'm suggesting that Eva-Beatrice does represent the second culprit, and you have to admit that there is a very close relationship between her and Lambda. Of course I can't prove anything and it's likely that a lot of fake clues exist in this story. However, you're suggesting that we just ignore all of the meta-scenes, rather than try to find clues from them. If the meta-scenes have no significance at all, I will be very disappointed. If Lambda has absolutely no effect or basis on the game board at all, I will be annoyed.

And by the way, isn't it clear that both times the epitaph is solved, someone under Lambda's control ends up being the supposed "culprit" in the meta-world? That is either a trick or a clue. No way it's a coincidence.

As for the gold text, I'm suggesting that there are multiple layers of truth. Let me try and make my point given a few (I think) reasonable assumptions:
Evatrice takes over in EP3->
Beatrice is not capable of being the Game Master for the second culprit->
Beatrice does not know the full truth about the second culprit->
You do not need to know all the truths on the island to use the gold truth.

Ryuukishi said "anyone who knows the full truth can use the gold", but he never said "only people who know absolutely everything can use the gold". In fact, we know that Beatrice doesn't know "everything" because she didn't know the truth about Sakutarou. True, that might or might not have affected the crime directly, but it did affect the characters (namely Rosa).

[Marion]

I'm pretty sure Bern was the one controlling Battler when he solved the epitaph - Lambda herself suggests this. Not sure about Erika, but I'm pretty positive she was either acting to her own devices or Bern was also using her. Lambda was able to control Natsuhi because she was the Game Master, not because Natsuhi solved the epitaph or whatever. You can't really compare the situations, unless you suggest Eva and Evatrice were in Lambda's control the entire time. However I'm pretty sure Beatrice implied that she allowed Evatrice to her own devices.

As for the Lambda - Evatrice connection: they only speak with each other one time in all of EP 3 and Lambda herself suggests Evatrice was just a garbage piece distraction Beatrice threw into the fantasy when she talks alone with Beato in the tea party. Lambda approved so that Evatrice could actually perform magic on the gameboard.

And to be honest the game states clearly the Game Master must be aware of the truth in order to be a Game Master. Lambda knew all of Beatrice's plans, which is why she could take over. Battler figured out the truth, which is why he could take over. If the Game Master doesn't know the truth for the gameboard and they're running the game it makes no sense.

As for Sakutaro - Sakutaro was something that happened off the gameboard not on the gameboard. Ange had brought him from 1998 as well, which is 12 years away from Beato's realm, which can explain why she didn't know of a second Sakutaro.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Marion

I'm pretty sure Bern was the one controlling Battler when he solved the epitaph.

This means nothing except that Battler is perfectly able to solving the epitaph if he really puts his mind to it. After all, pieces cannot be made to do things that they're incapable of.

Originally Posted by Marion

As for the Lambda - Evatrice connection: they only speak with each other one time in all of EP 3 and Lambda herself suggests Evatrice was just a garbage piece distraction Beatrice threw into the fantasy when she talks alone with Beato in the tea party. Lambda approved so that Evatrice could actually perform magic on the gameboard.

He's not talking about that, unless I'm misunderstanding him: Not only do Evatrice and Lambda behave and talk in an oddly similar fashion, Evatrice even claims (at the beginning of Ep3) to have the magic of certainty. And then the anime gives her the same voice actress as Takano...

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

He's not talking about that, unless I'm misunderstanding him: Not only do Evatrice and Lambda behave and talk in an oddly similar fashion, Evatrice even claims (at the beginning of Ep3) to have the magic of certainty. And then the anime gives her the same voice actress as Takano...

No, she's given the same VA as Eva who is the same VA as Takano, because Evatrice and Eva are essentially the same person. VA choices mean nothing. Just because Lambda is voiced by the same person as Miyoko doesn't mean Lambda is Takano or that Bern is Rika. It's also explictly stated that Lambda does not com from Takano in the same fashion that Bern comes from Rika.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Marion

No, she's given the same VA as Eva who is the same VA as Takano, because Evatrice and Eva are essentially the same person. VA choices mean nothing. Just because Lambda is voiced by the same person as Miyoko doesn't mean Lambda is Takano or that Bern is Rika. It's also explictly stated that Lambda does not com from Takano in the same fashion that Bern comes from Rika.

Yes, that's probably just a coincidence.

However, she still states that her magic is that of Certainty... that should definitely raise a flag.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Yes, that's probably just a coincidence.

However, she still states that her magic is that of Certainty... that should definitely raise a flag.

I'm rereading the scene when we first meet Evatrice (in her school uniform). Her power is 'changing anger into power' and as long as Eva believes in her she will 'surely' create a situation for Eva to become to head. But certainty isn't her magic - anger is. Because Eva is angry at Krauss and Kinzo she uses that anger and turns it into the power to will herself to fight against them, which is embodied in Evatrice. Lambda's certainty makes it so that depending on what you wish for you don't even need to work (wishing to become a God, rather than just wishing to be a God).

[Tyabann]

Er, sorry, misremembering.

The way she describes her anger becoming power, and the whole "if you believe strongly enough in it, I can make it come true" really reminded me of Lambda's Extra TIP that describes how she granted Takano her wish.

Just my interpretation, though.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Er, sorry, misremembering.

The way she describes her anger becoming power, and the whole "if you believe strongly enough in it, I can make it come true" really reminded me of Lambda's Extra TIP that describes how she granted Takano her wish.

Just my interpretation, though.

You have a point, although the entire 'believing in it' makes me think more of Bern, since Lambda's magic is more about taking initiative rather than just wishing for something to happen.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Marion

And to be honest the game states clearly the Game Master must be aware of the truth in order to be a Game Master.

Not exactly. Battler becomes the Game Master before EP6, and yet EP6 is supposedly a test to prove that he really does know everything. If simply becoming the Game Master and using the gold text is proof that you know everything, then there is no need for EP6.

I think it works like this: the Game Master is capable of controlling all of the pieces they understand. By understanding Sayo's piece and most of the others, Battler gained the key towards controlling 99% of the game. If Battler tried to move a piece in a way that it couldn't, it would create a logic error and he would lose (though maybe he'd just lose the position of Game Master, like Beatrice might have done in EP3. The ceremony with Erika hinted at this.). Fortunately for him and Beato, "Nanjo" wouldn't have to do anything suspicious unless the epitaph is solved and Sayo stops killing. In other words, Nanjo's true nature is a cat box truth to them. The only unexpected things she does happen outside the perspectives of all other characters until the bomb goes off. Beato can't explain the bomb, so she hits a logic error at the end of each game (with this theory).

[Katsuun]

Alright, long time lurker here. I swore I'd never actually join and psot anything, but something has been bugging me to the point where I have to ask before returning to the lurkers corner, and I can't recall it being asked before:

At any point during the game, was Knox's Decalouge ever proven to actually apply to the games? It may seem odd to question this of all things, but Knox's Decalouge was never confirmed as applying to the game itself by any Red or Gold Text (That I can find anyways; some Japanese is still beyond me. Also, I have yet to read EP6, so it might be confirmed there).

And yes, Knox's rules were accounted in Red; Dlanor did say "Knox's 1st. It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!" I'll admit that. But the Red is subjective, it can be interpreted and is not absoulute truth.

Furthermore, stating Knox's rules in Red wouldn't necessarily make Knox's Decalouge apply to the game. The rules themselves are correct, Knox (or Dlanor's father in this case) defined them, and thus they are truth. But it is never stated in Red that the rules apply to the game; only the rules themselves are stated in Red. Since the Rules are truths, they can be said in Red for that reason, the rules themselves are a truth that can apply. But since it is never said in Red that they do apply, Knox's Decalouge does not have to apply.

I'm probably wrong, and I'm sure somebody has something to refute me. The games would probably be even harder to solve without the Decalouge. But I just needed to know.

[k//eternal]

It was stated that there's no guarantee of that. Their usage in EP5 as a functional red counterargument seems to imply they work for EP5, though, or people would be using irrelevant facts to counter everything.

Then again, Battler took down Dragon-Kinzo with a really cheap shot, so who knows.

[imaginari]

Why are so many people assuming that everyone has a counterpart? I only know of two fantasy characters who have stated that they have a connection to people on the island, and both of them look like younger versions of the humans that they represent, which doesn't work well for anyone else that I can think of. And one of them was in the dungeon while their human was with Battler, which means that we can't rely on them as a way to know who did what and where.

If I'm wrong, and there are counterparts that I haven't acknowledged, why? Where do they come from, and what do they mean?

[CainSonozaki]

I have a random question. when and where does it say what stakes were used or found. i remember reading someone say something about mammons stake being found with kyrie or something and thats why ange has it, but i dont rmemeber reading anything like that in the VN

[chronotrig]

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by Katsuun

Alright, long time lurker here. I swore I'd never actually join and psot anything, but something has been bugging me to the point where I have to ask before returning to the lurkers corner, and I can't recall it being asked before:

At any point during the game, was Knox's Decalouge ever proven to actually apply to the games? It may seem odd to question this of all things, but Knox's Decalouge was never confirmed as applying to the game itself by any Red or Gold Text (That I can find anyways; some Japanese is still beyond me. Also, I have yet to read EP6, so it might be confirmed there).

And yes, Knox's rules were accounted in Red; Dlanor did say "Knox's 1st. It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!" I'll admit that. But the Red is subjective, it can be interpreted and is not absoulute truth.

Furthermore, stating Knox's rules in Red wouldn't necessarily make Knox's Decalouge apply to the game. The rules themselves are correct, Knox (or Dlanor's father in this case) defined them, and thus they are truth. But it is never stated in Red that the rules apply to the game; only the rules themselves are stated in Red. Since the Rules are truths, they can be said in Red for that reason, the rules themselves are a truth that can apply. But since it is never said in Red that they do apply, Knox's Decalouge does not have to apply.

I'm probably wrong, and I'm sure somebody has something to refute me. The games would probably be even harder to solve without the Decalouge. But I just needed to know.

You bring up a good point. We're strongly led to believe that the Knox rules apply, and some red seems to confirm that at least parts of them do, but it has never been confirmed that they actually do apply.

In fact, you can confirm that they don't apply to each game. Ryuukishi has said that you need to read EP4 to solve the game, so you don't have enough information by the end of EP1 (though I think it's possible to guess the right answer for the closed rooms, at least).

Also, the red truth is probably "literal", not "subjective". You can say something as long as it's literally true by some interpretation of the actual words, though you don't need to explain all the details up front (if you have two guys named Bill in a room and only one dies, you can say "Bill died" without specifying which one). By saying something in red, you are only guaranteeing that at least one of its possible meanings is true.

Why are so many people assuming that everyone has a counterpart?

Partly because of the whole "vessel" concept that has been introduced since EP4 and emphasized in the EP5 Tea Party. In other words, it's strongly hinted that every (or at least most) meta-character is based on some item, person, or concept in the real world.

[Katsuun]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

[SPOILER="size"]

You bring up a good point. We're strongly led to believe that the Knox rules apply, and some red seems to confirm that at least parts of them do, but it has never been confirmed that they actually do apply.

In fact, you can confirm that they don't apply to each game. Ryuukishi has said that you need to read EP4 to solve the game, so you don't have enough information by the end of EP1 (though I think it's possible to guess the right answer for the closed rooms, at least).

Also, the red truth is probably "literal", not "subjective". You can say something as long as it's literally true by some interpretation of the actual words, though you don't need to explain all the details up front (if you have two guys named Bill in a room and only one dies, you can say "Bill died" without specifying which one). By saying something in red, you are only guaranteeing that at least one of its possible meanings is true.
[SPOILER]

If Ryukishi said that you need everything up to EP4 to solve the mystery (or game, mystery dosn't apply if Knox's Rules don't) dosn't that mean that Knox's Rules aren't needed to solve the case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they weren't mentioned until EP5. So even if they apply to games from EP5 onward, they wouldn't be factors in solving the mystery. Or at least, they wouldn't be important factors.

And further more, if Red is "literal" truth than what is the Gold supposed to be? Using the stuation that you set up, what would be the difference between saying "Bill is dead." and "Bill is dead."? And if Red is literal truth then my theory could still apply. Think of it like saying something that is true, but not stating how it actually applies. In most cases, Dlanor or Erika just say the rule outright, but they never say if it actually refutes the theory brought up. They just say the rule.

In that case, it would be like me saying a correct thing, even if it had no relation to what was going on; it could be said in Red because it is a literal truth. "Energy may not be created or destroyed." That is a truth, so it can be said in Red. What I did not say is how that truth can be applied to the sitatuon at hand. Which is exactly what Dlanor and Erika do most of the time. They say the rule, but they don't say if it applies or not. Again, I don't know if there are counterexamples to this, my Japanese isn't perfect and I miss some of the statements.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Katsuun

In that case, it would be like me saying a correct thing, even if it had no relation to what was going on; it could be said in Red because it is a literal truth. "Energy may not be created or destroyed." That is a truth, so it can be said in Red. What I did not say is how that truth can be applied to the sitatuon at hand. Which is exactly what Dlanor and Erika do most of the time. They say the rule, but they don't say if it applies or not. Again, I don't know if there are counterexamples to this, my Japanese isn't perfect and I miss some of the statements.

There are a few cases that get pretty close to confirming the rules, but I think that's probably because the rules happen to conform to those specific places. For example:

Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED!
Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE!
Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!!
Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

This makes it seem like Knox's 8th does apply, since Battler has the burden of showing proof. However, this might just be based on the simple "Beatrice made this game to be solvable" red text instead of the more specific Knox rules. In other words, after EP1-4, it is possible to find the truth, so you could say in red "There must always be some sort of clue to lead to all relevant truths". However, if you say that, it creates a new burden in the future Episodes to follow that new red truth, which is why Battler is forced to show the evidence for his theory.

Spoiler for gold text:

After EP6, my feelings on the gold text have changed. There was one possibility I'd looked at before, but I assigned it to the blue text instead in my last theory. When you think about it, it makes more sense for this rule to be governed by gold text due to what Lambda said. "That's enough. Using any more than that one line would be crude."

If each Episode truly is the opinion of the gameboard detective at the end of the game, you can explain almost every single scene in EP1-4. However, some specific details are based on the imagination of the detective instead of what he witnessed and hearsay. Maybe the gold text specifies what happens for those scenes that the detective doesn't know about.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Katsuun

If Ryukishi said that you need everything up to EP4 to solve the mystery (or game, mystery dosn't apply if Knox's Rules don't) dosn't that mean that Knox's Rules aren't needed to solve the case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they weren't mentioned until EP5. So even if they apply to games from EP5 onward, they wouldn't be factors in solving the mystery. Or at least, they wouldn't be important factors.

It is true that it isn't a certain fact, and it is also true that the characters in the story refuse to answer that very same question. However right before Battler reached the truth he started to think "let's imagine for a moment that the knox rules do apply" and we see a lot of thinkings about them with Cornelia and Gertrude popping up to remind him of those. And then a short while after he started to think for the first time about them, BAM he suddenly knew everything.

Frankly I doubt they are really irrelevant, if they were that whole scene would be kinda pointless.

Originally Posted by Katsuun

And further more, if Red is "literal" truth than what is the Gold supposed to be? Using the stuation that you set up, what would be the difference between saying "Bill is dead." and "Bill is dead."? And if Red is literal truth then my theory could still apply. Think of it like saying something that is true, but not stating how it actually applies. In most cases, Dlanor or Erika just say the rule outright, but they never say if it actually refutes the theory brought up. They just say the rule.

We don't know yet what gold is, but according to the gold truth we see in EP6 I decidedly doubt that the gold has anything to do with a "literal" truth.... at all...

[ArcticHelm]

Spoiler for Gold Text, Ep.3, 5&6:

Personally I had thought that gold text was the truth and intent regarding Beato's magic. The gold used by Battler in episode 5 seem to point towards the result, a confirmation through magic of something which can -never- be presented. Big sister Beato's gold in episode 6 seems to point towards the nature of the board, as a created golden petal under an overturned cup; Thus we can think of Beato's Golden Land as something she wished to create under the event as Rokkenjima, closed up and undeniable for all eternity. In this sense she could have a truth, one of hold where everyone was happy and blessed. I think a number of lines, especially regarding Beatrice's re-emergence on Rokkenjima in Episode 6 helps point towards this. Also it could be linked to Beatrice's 'golden heart' in Episode 3 when she was fighting with Eva-trice, and likewise at the end of 4 in what she reveals to Battler as the 'ending event'.