2012-02-02, 12:57 | Link #27581 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
As you said, the only reason it worked is because it was allowed to work. If somebody came in and said "Wait a second, you're depicting George as alive! But back in Banquet, someone said George is dead! SHENANIGANS!" Somebody would probably say "Obviously, he was dead at a point in the previous game, and did not start that game or this game dead; thus, he is still alive in this game." Most of the time that exchange doesn't happen, because it's obvious. Whether Kinzo is dead is much less obvious, because he's never seen by the detective. Bear in mind, that doesn't prove he's dead. It's just that the detective seeing Kinzo alive would make it impossible for him to have been dead from the start of the game. That's never happened. It doesn't mean it can't. Red does not work like that. Quote:
Where I'm going with this is that Battler is basically stating something which is self-evident - that Kinzo is generally assumed to be dead, especially in this game, unless something says otherwise; and that because of this, the detective could not see an illusion of Kinzo being alive - to conclude that he was not the detective. But the fact that he'd seen an illusion of Kinzo should make that obvious. Basically, it's not something he should have to defend. Bern and Erika are just dicks like that. As to the predictive nature of that red, I don't deny it. But the point is there are predictive reds which are not true. So it's simply easier to conclude that a predictive red may be true, and Battler's use of it at that time means it was applied to any prior observations of Kinzo up to that time, including the one he had earlier made. In other words, it's phrased predictively, but was utilized retroactively.
__________________
|
||
2012-02-02, 13:00 | Link #27582 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Quote:
In essence, Jessica's influence on the game board will have then been denied. In the first six games, Kinzo was dead. In EP7, a bigger cat box was used, which allowed room for him to exist. In EP8, his presence was all an illusion. Don't believe me? Ok, here's evidence taken straight from EP8: "It goes without saying... that this is an illusion. You cannot come to Rokkenjima on October 4th, 1986. This whole party we shared was all a magical illusion, created by the Game Master, Battler." Ange later confirms it: "As for that Halloween quiz party, that certainly was an illusion. That never happened." Quote:
No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight! It's the red truth Beato used to counter my blue truth claim that 'someone disguised themselves as Kinzo' to make it seem as though Grandfather had appeared. In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'." [EDIT: Sigh, Wanderer beat me to it.] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Acknowledged thing is just what it sounds like: "yes, what you just said is true." Each of the things BATTLER acknowledges are different, but each of those things he has acknowledged will count as different Red Truths. And obviously, all of the clues were gathered there in EP7. That's what it meant. Has there ever been any implication that it meant something different? Quote:
I have already explained EP8, by the way. And I've given evidence of my claims with regard to that. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2012-02-02, 13:12 | Link #27583 | ||||||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll wait. Quote:
The predictive red is only as binding as the Game Master permits. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That does not sound to me like a hard and fast rule. It sounds to me like a general guideline that has been true before, but which Erika is exploiting because there's no easy way to demonstrate it is for any given game. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||||
2012-02-02, 13:41 | Link #27584 | ||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
I can't quote it conveniently since it's a blue (which aren't listed on that site), but Dlanor argued in blue that even as the detective Battler could have simply mistook something for Kinzo. To counter that Battler applied "No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!", a Red spoken in EP4, to EP5. It's that particular Red being assumed that I'm trying to discuss. Can Battler be so sure that he could assume no one could dress up as Kinzo and fool someone that he can say so in Red? Especially after it's asserted to be possible in blue? Quote:
|
||
2012-02-02, 13:49 | Link #27585 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
I'm impressed how complicated you're making this issue sound. Mind, this is still somewhat speculative, but I think it goes as simply as:
"Yo, I'm an author. Gonna write me a forgery. The theme is Detective-Battler and Sidekick-Kinzo become good friends and try to turn Rosa into something that isn't a child-abusing skank." "B-but, Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!" "Well, Kinzo is totally alive in this game I'm writing. It's not like you can stop me or anything, and it's what I wanna do. Y U MAD. Also, Kanon has his own body apart from Shannon, and Rosa decided to bring her boyfriend to the conference, which is awkward for everybody. His name is Randy. He sells propane. No more than 19 people on this island, yo. I mean, the Prime fandom at large probably wouldn't accept such a game, but it's not like it CANNOT be made. |
2012-02-02, 13:53 | Link #27586 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Quote:
Look. I'll go ahead and explain the nature of our argument for you. I am proposing that "Red Truths can and do apply as laws" in an effort to make it not be worthless. You are trying to prove me wrong. However, you have provided no proof and are instead giving me a theory which allows you to disregard my Red Truth. This is completely useless because neither of our theories have been disproven, which allows both of them to exist at the same time. My goal is not to disprove your theories. Therefore, I don't need to respond to them. You're free to believe whatever you want. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
According to my theory, it's perfectly easy for me to prove that Kinzo is dead. Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games! You see the advantage of my theory? It makes things a lot more certain. With your theory, Red Truth is all but useless. So, of course, this doesn't prove anything for you. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
2012-02-02, 13:54 | Link #27587 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Why? Because End was not very well written, is the answer I'm going with. A lot of the drama was entirely contrived, such as the point we both agree on: Quote:
Inherently, I understand what the idea of this was. Erika's point is that, although Kinzo is believed to be dead from the start, this is yet another thing wrapped up in the catbox. We can't actually demonstrate that Kinzo has been dead from the start. All we have to go on is the assurance of the Game Master, and the Game Master is permitted to alter certain things about the setup of the game, even to some extent leading up to the game itself (Our Confessions suggests Beatrice can make plans involving a few days' prior contingency; this should be impossible if the only conditions allowed are those starting October 4, 1986). Thus, if we can't prove that Kinzo is dead, we can reach a valid speculation about the text based on what the text actually shows us. In other words, we know Kinzo's death is being covered up... but if you go strictly by the narrative that, say, Piece-Erika has access to, you have nothing that actually demonstrates this knowledge. Thus, Piece-Erika would argue, you're playing unfairly and violating Knox's rules. Now, ep5 itself does not convey this point very well, instead mining drama from a trumped-up "trial" (that isn't a trial) of the wrong Beatrice and Battler being forced to do a bunch of dumb crap he shouldn't have to do. But I get what Ryukishi wanted to do with his own assumptions. Given this, I have to conclude that he always meant to play with the "revelation" that Kinzo is already dead. We're only ever told that Beatrice/Yasu has the necessary foreknowledge to assert this. But the fact of the matter is, that knowledge is completely lost in her catbox, so far as we know. In fact, there's no way to be sure that Clair's narrative or the whole Epitaph solution part of ep7 is accessible to anyone but us, the audience, and possibly people like Will or Bern. Even if they are the truth, and Yasu's true thoughts, who exactly knows about them and where did they find it out? We're not sure. Thus, if Kinzo probably was dead, but we can never know it, his condition is actually identical to Erika's. Erika probably was not there that weekend. But can we know it? No, absolutely not. That knowledge was destroyed and unless a survivor says something more about it, it's a complete cipher. If it's unknown, a Game Master can make use of it one way or another. Kinzo being dead was important to Beatrice. That doesn't mean it's impossible to portray him as alive. Battler does this in ep8. Granted, his story is facially absurd, that's clearly his intention; however, the only actually impossible part of it is Ange's attendance. We cannot know Kinzo's behavior on those days, if he was alive at all, nor can we know that he was alive at all. Quote:
But I'm not the one trying to make this complicated, man.
__________________
|
|||
2012-02-02, 15:55 | Link #27588 | ||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just for an obviously untrue hypothetical, but just to make a point here, Say for instance that Kinzo was never dead, and it was just a conceit of Beatrice's gameboard, and Battler's EP8 Gameboard is actually closer to the truth than other Games. Now, don't waste time arguing that, it's just demonstrative. I don't believe it. Quote:
Because the Games are fictional. EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS AN ILLUSION, but the players use suspension of disbelief so that the game can occur and the 'truth' of that particular game can be discovered. But Ange is having an emotional fit and refusing to play along. By the way I just want to point something out. Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games! If we actually use the power of SYNTAXXXXX, there isn't anything in this statement that makes it predictive. "All Games" COULD refer to FUTURE games, yea, but she also uses "Already", and she doesn't specifically define "All Games" as "All Possible Games" or anything similiar. "Already" is a past-tense term, so this red can be easily read as "All games so far" And you have absolutely nothing that demonstrates that your interpretation is superior to anyone else's. After all, after EP4 we have two games where Kinzo is dead (maybe) and two games where he is explicitly shown to still be living. And Beatrice wasn't in charge of any of them. I'm sorry Toku, but you're wrong. You are taking your position and working BACKWARDS from it, instead of using the text to reach a conclusion regardless of your personal preference for that conclusion. This is bad logic in every part of the academic world.
__________________
|
||||
2012-02-02, 16:19 | Link #27589 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think I finally understand the basis for your theory about EP8. The presence of the goats really do work well with Battler's "you just forgot and were influenced by the opinions of others in the future." That's interesting. Though, in the end, I think we both agree that EP8 isn't the Truth or anything like that, so it kind of amounts to the same thing. Battler wants Ange to believe that she had a kind family, so he lies to her. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2012-02-02, 16:34 | Link #27590 | |
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Of course it's interesting that the Decalogue was applied to a Meta-World issue at all. The Meta-World can have Mystery laws applied to it? Although... there really was good reason to think Battler's viewpoint was uniquely reliable in EPs 1-4, and then changing that premise in EP5 while also actually providing clues for it does make for a good development. Using the Decalogue as a context to bring this up is where it gets misleading. Rule of Cool, I guess. |
|
2012-02-02, 17:10 | Link #27591 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Battler is in the same position. He just sort of knows that his piece had a kind of specialness to it in previous episodes. He didn't know why, he couldn't consciously utilize it very well, Beatrice never brought it up, and he certainly can't prove what does or doesn't make him whatever it is. He also can't prove the things he argues based on unsolicited red; it's true, what else needs to be said? To change the rules up on him with sudden left-field definitions and then force him to deny something he never claimed in the first place is just a very strange way of forcing conflict. If the idea of End was to cast some light on the difference between working from what the author has actually written versus understanding what the author specifically intended, it wasn't very well-developed. The real heart of the Battler/Erika battle is that Battler knows what Beatrice meant, while Erika believes you can stand by any valid answer based on what is actually present in the text. We can see this come up again with Will, who is giving Clair the answers to the mysteries that she actually wants to hear. Are there other solutions? In some cases, yes. Are they the intended ones? Probably not. Quote:
However, we should have guessed well in advance of this that Battler was unreliable in ep5 due to the very incident Battler later brings up. On the other hand, the mere fact that Battler is not a detective (a role which was never even defined in ep1-4 in the first place) doesn't mean we should just automatically consider him unreliable. After all, Natsuhi is never a "reliable perspective" and her first-person segments in ep5 have no particularly good reason to be unreliable. It's a case of knee-jerk reactions that I think lead people astray in later scenes. No one actually took that scene in ep5 to suggest that Battler had really believed he'd physically seen Kinzo there, surely? That scene was obviously meant to be a metaphor. A perspective that is tempered with metaphor is not itself unreliable if Battler maintains no reason to be deceptive.
__________________
|
||
2012-02-02, 18:34 | Link #27592 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Battler's point was that Ange is letting the tragedy overshadow their entire lives. He's kinda right.
__________________
|
||
2012-02-02, 18:50 | Link #27593 | ||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
And I find it weird that the Decalogue is applied to whether or not Battler is the 'detective', a matter not relevant to what actually happened on the Game Board in any way. It means that the Meta-World itself is a Mystery story... Hm, well, I guess that's not so bad. Quote:
But I also do think that Battler's vision of Kinzo was a complete lie because he already knew his way to the gold. It really felt that way when I reread it recently, especially since Erika, Miss Super-Smart-Super-Senses, didn't notice the turned statue and was mildly surprised that Battler was competent enough that he did. As for why Battler's Piece would lie, he wasn't the one playing his piece. Do you have something against a meta-motive from Lambda for lying to the Meta-World? |
||
2012-02-02, 18:58 | Link #27594 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Where you're not.
|
Quote:
It's funny, and kind, of sad how several people (especially on 4chan) demonized Battler as a troll who tried to keep the truth from Ange at all costs before actually getting to read EP8. I think that's one huge source of the misplaced hate we who have been around since the final game's release have seen.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-02, 19:13 | Link #27595 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Which she's done other times.
__________________
|
||
2012-02-02, 19:45 | Link #27596 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
About the detective being able to lie...
I think EP 5 made pretty clear the detective can't lie on clues. Though it's possible the detective can lie on things that don't constitute clues (for example Battler comments on Kumasawa looking younger... when probably he's only being corteous and he rants about not being scared of boats... however captain Kuwabata in EP 4 said he always was, even with the previous boat, not just with the new one). I don't know if this apply on Umineko too because it wasn't used by Battler or Erika as far as I can remember but it might be possible for the detective to lie on clues if the audience knows he's lying. In short if we could for example hear Battler say to Jessica 'I'm going to tell aunt Eva you're dead because I suspect her and I want to see her reaction about this' he would lie to Eva but the audience wouldn't be lied about Jessica's life or dead status. The best explanation for Battler seeing magic in EP 2 as far as I'm involved is that he was intoxicated. It's possible he could see them because he had refused his status as detective but I don't really like this explanation. However in EP 1 visual novel Battler didn't shot at any butterflies before midnight. He did it in the anime though. However in teh visual novel it looks like he might have seen Beato but this can be explain with Yasuda wearing Beato's dress. After all Yasuda was there shooting at Natsuhi... About Van Dine's rules Differently from Knox's Rules Van Dine's aren't included in the tips. Ergo they can't be used as clues because they're not presented, which can be taken as a hint most of them won't work on Beato's gameboard. In EP 8 we're told that the red truth is a truth we agree upon. Beato don't use it for things she knows Battler wouldn't agree, we're told Battler accepted that the red truth was supposed to be truth without the need of a proof (ergo he implicitly agreed about the usage of red truth). In Ep 4 Beato at first seemed willing to accept the blue truths Battler used... though we know some of them were wrong and in EP 5 Lambda accepted Erika's solution althought it was obviously wrong. My feeling is that Knox's rules could be used because the GM agreed to let them be used by the player... while all the Van Dine's rules might not have had the same privilege. We know that Beato's corpse can't possibly exist as the body she's tied at is alive in EP 7 (Shannon and Kanon are shown moving around and Lion looks alive as well) plus tragedy hasn't striken on Rokkenjima yet so when Will tries using the rule about the corpse she uses devil's proof. On that gameboard however there's no something that might be called Beato's 'corpse' yet. On the other gameboards Yasuda might have died (if you don't believe she became Ikuko) but we've no hints or clues about her corpse being found so it can very well not exist. I guess her using devil's proof was a hint that Van Dine's won't work, though at the same time she dind't want to openly tell this to Will. About Kinzo's status Personally I think that Kinzo could be alive in EP 7 due to the bigger catbox in which the game was inserted. Though I also think that the life or death status and everything else is always due to an agreement/decision between the player and the gamemaster. Generally the status of Kinzo is always kept the same because the game is suposed to mirror the situation of Rokkenjima Prime. Changing the status of Kinzo, allowing Lion to exist or Ange to go there you clearly create a game that can't possibly fit in Beato's catbox. I think Beato was interested in Battler solving her catbox so it's unlikely she would have presented him with a bigger catbox like Bern does. Kinzo being dead was probably one of the things she wanted Battler to figure out... if she were to change Kinzo's status however this truth would be become 'optionable'. Quote:
Sadly it's mostly a speculation theory because there isn't much info on what had happened in those two days on Rokkenjima Prime. I remember writing an outline of what might have happened based on the little evidence we have and recurring themes in the games but the real details are hard to pin down and I fear my speculations might be influenced by my beliefs over the characters... -_- Quote:
Of course it's also possible it was Yasuda who came up with it and suggested it to the adults as a way to force Natsuhi to reveal Kinzo was dead. She must have been in as well as it's unlikely Battler planned the phonecalls... while the cousins' faking being dead might be explained as a joke (they probably weren't supposed to play dead for long) the calls Natsuhi receives are definitely planning to hurt her, not just to scare her a little and reveal a inner knowledge of her past that looks unlikely Battler might have had. Though in EP 5 and 6 Battler plays an active role in the whole murder game and in Ep 5 he also realy tries to solve the epitaph so I wondered if this can be considered a reflection of his stance in Rokkenjima Prime. Ep 8 claiming that there might have been the habit of making a halloween party also seemed to be a hint in how he might have thought to play a mystery prank to the others. ... but again most of what had happened in R Prime is closed in the catbox... -_- Quote:
*sighs* I so wish Ryukishi would tell us... but maybe he wants to leave it in the dark... |
|||
2012-02-02, 21:58 | Link #27597 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Why would Yasu need a complicated plan to make Natsuhi admit Kinzo is dead? She already knows. She probably was involved heavily in the coverup. Genji will back her up.
All she has to do is go "Madam Natsuhi paid us to hide it, but I can't anymore! Master Kinzo is dead!" while Genji nods knowingly and Nanjo cracks under the pressure. This seems much simpler than an elaborate plan to make Natsuhi admit to it.
__________________
|
2012-02-02, 23:05 | Link #27598 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Though I don't really know at what Yasuda is aiming in EP 5. If Battler solved the epitaph she should have stopped. If the solution was handed to him... it's possible she's still trying to involve him in a mystery game planning to kill the cousins after they faked death. Anyway this leaves us with '3' possible masterminds for the 'let's play dead' plan: - one of the siblings, though neither of them seems to have shown interest about mystery... but they might have been inspired by the epitaph and by having a girl claiming to be a detective around - Battler, who has interests in mystery and might have started planning it as a halloween prank/game/whatever and might have been forced to revise it due to external pressure - Yasuda, who wants to have her mystery game with Battler and is manipulating events to get her goal. Or do you have other possible explanations? |
|
2012-02-02, 23:45 | Link #27599 | |
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-02-03, 00:03 | Link #27600 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Personally, I think Yasu's behaviour in EP5 could be explained through Meta, considering Lambda was was the Game Master. After all, we've already seen in some TIPs the story can play out in almost any way as long as the GM wants it.
All the same, Natsuhi did show a similar irritability in EP1 and she also got some letter by the end of that episode which made her go and face Beatrice. So, I guess there's the possibility she may have been blackmailed in both stories. I think it could be interesting if she was indeed being blackmailed as well in EP1, because that'd really make us wonder about Yasu's motives even further, considering that using the deal with the baby from 19 years ago deal is pretty much a way to mind torture Natsuhi, and I don't think that's a pretty blatant act of revenge.
__________________
|
|
|