[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 8 Twilight of the golden witch

[Domiano]

True...
I just felt kinda cheated during the game, since I solved it except for that one point.
And when the hints ignored the murders that still had to happen for the case, it felt like it was a lie that it was a fair game.

Guess Ryukishi had to keep things open so he could use them later...

[AuraTwilight]

It's not really that big a deal; it's not fundamentally different from the whole bomb thing.

[Renall]

Again, I don't think predictive reds have a truth value at all. I've always read that as being equivalent to opinion. The only red regarding seals in any of the games that actually holds is red that describes either the current condition of the seals ("are not broken") or their state at a determined point in time in the narrative ("were not broken"). These are verifiable states. A future event is not. Of course the author/game master/red user is free to take steps to actually do what was promised in red, but I don't see why they'd be required to achieve it.

Future/opinion red having no truth value also wraps up a few other bothersome nitpicks and slaps some duct tape on a couple ambiguous bits. And it's supported; we've known you can say non-factual things in red since ep2 when it came into the story. So by far the simplest explanation is "predictive/opinionated red text does not need to be factual, because predictive or opinion statements do not have a verifiable truth value when stated."

For example, I don't believe a predictive red could put an author into a Logic Error, though of course we have nothing in the text that actually proves that.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think this one is "predictive", though. It's clearly a story that Bernkastel has already written by the time she makes her red, so her being untruthful with that red can't be interpreted as anything other than a straight lie (which would be very odd considering that the primary/ original purpose of reds was to assure your readers of certain facts within your mystery story).

I'd say that "predictive reds aren't always true" could hold when the person stating the red doesn't have complete control over whether the red is eventually true or not, though.

[theacefrehley]

forget it...

edited

[AuraTwilight]

I don't think this one is "predictive", though. It's clearly a story that Bernkastel has already written by the time she makes her red, so her being untruthful with that red can't be interpreted as anything other than a straight lie (which would be very odd considering that the primary/ original purpose of reds was to assure your readers of certain facts within your mystery story).

The story had not even concluded when she said that the seals would never be broken; this is predictive.

[Leafsnail]

But it's her story which she has already written.

If I write a story and then read it to someone, and proclaim "This character dies at the end" halfway through, then that isn't a prediction, since I clearly already know (and have in fact decided) the outcome. I'm either lying or telling the truth (I could have been mistaken in some extremely weird way, I suppose, but it's still not a prediction).

[AuraTwilight]

You fail to account for the fact that Umineko is metafiction, however. Meaning that sort of rule doesn't necessarily apply unless it's explicitly stated to be because of how timefuckery is generally all over the place and Gamemasters have been unable to predict their own games before.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the fact that Bern already planned out and wrote everything, but her predictive red can only hold any sort of value as long as things don't go off course.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

But it's her story which she has already written.

If I write a story and then read it to someone, and proclaim "This character dies at the end" halfway through, then that isn't a prediction, since I clearly already know (and have in fact decided) the outcome. I'm either lying or telling the truth (I could have been mistaken in some extremely weird way, I suppose, but it's still not a prediction).

Well, that has happened before.

Here's the problem with your example: You've already read the book, so you can say whether something exists, by matter of fact, within a book. If real life had red text, in other words, you could state it in red.

However, there's a difference between that and actually existing and living within a story, and a difference still from planning a story (as in a play script) and acting it out. Sometimes people flub their lines. You might say "this production of Hamlet will contain the line 'to be, or not to be, that is the question;'" however, the actor playing Hamlet may accidentally say "The question is... to be or not?" Clearly the script says that the line is one thing, but you cannot state as fact that the line appeared in the current production, because it didn't; the actor didn't say it.

Of course I don't consider that even remotely relevant because I think future-tense red text in Umineko literally has no truth value. Therefore Bern wouldn't even need to make a remote effort to live up to her predictive statement if she didn't want to, whether her "plan" or "script" was going to follow it or not. You can't verify the truth or falsehood of something that hasn't happened yet, even if you know what's "supposed" to happen.

[UsagiTenpura]

Lamda Delta rewind the game in arc 5. Didn't that allow for predictive red, in theory?
Now, fundamentally, how is any game different from this?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Lamda Delta rewind the game in arc 5. Didn't that allow for predictive red, in theory?
Now, fundamentally, how is any game different from this?

Allow for, or actually demonstrates? There's only one predictive red in ep5 and it isn't used in the game itself. The mere fact that the game could be rewound doesn't necessarily prove that changes could have defeated an existing red prior to the point in the story where that red would be stressed.

While retroactive moves appear to have been permissible in ep6, Battler's assent clearly indicated that he considered the seals to have "always been there," and asserted that his narrative would not be contradicted by their presence or absence. The nature of the Logic Error is whether that is true or whether he had to violate that. Setting aside Battler's motive in doing it, if any, the retroactivity there was used as a past-tense declaration.

So basically no, it doesn't permit it in theory, because the only example we have of any form of retroactivity appearing to apply explicitly fixes the red at the point in the past where it otherwise would have applied as a present declaration, and it was only ever used thereafter in present and past declarations.

[UsagiTenpura]

I don't know, most of what you said seems to be based on comparing Umineko to a theater play. I don't see anything supporting that anywhere in the serie.

And there's been plenty of red truth from the "future" that, when put in the context of the gameboard, act as predictive red. (Everyone dies, no one is left alive for starters).

[Renall]

Predictions coming true is not the same thing as a predictive statement having a truth value. Several things in Umineko are predicted in red and do happen. Several things don't. It's just easier if things can match a prediction but aren't required to.

[Jan-Poo]

It would be better if red truths that affect future simply couldn't be used if the one who say them can't guarantee that they'll be definitely true.

For example I can pretty safely state that: All of us will die one day

Alternatively it would be better if it was specified that red truths that claim to be valid for "all games" are valid only for "all games" that were created up to that point, or valid for "all games" created by that specific author.


This lack of clarity is just one of the many things that made red truths useless in the end. And that defied the very purpose of the red truths.
A red truth that you can't rely upon, has no reason to exist.

[UsagiTenpura]

The way I see it, there's two points I fundamentally disagree with how (many of) you consider red statements.

First a red truth is not a "tyranical truth". Look at arc 5, the convo Battler had with Dlanor about the Knox commandments and how they weren't meant to be binding us down. I believe this is how red should be considered.

Second a red truth is not something applicable to the real world but only to literature, however you are trying to apply it "as if it existed in the real world", which is impossible. You cannot take the red out of a literature context.

[Jan-Poo]

Most characters act as if red can apply to real world situations, specifically Ange, and she does that to the very end. But whether this is true or not it is irrelevant for me, as long as the boundaries are well specified.

As for the tyranical nature of the red truths, that's exactly how they were presented.

From the very beginning Beatrice said: "stop, a red truth is simply the truth". No explanation was necessary, no complain was allowed, not any margin of debate or doubt was forgiven. Absolutely tyranical.

And as Beatrice well explained, if it wasn't so there wouldn't have even be a game. A game needs absolute rules, a game whose rules aren't absolute is a shitty game.

[UsagiTenpura]

Well I don't think Ange is real world. That's an entirely different and very huge topic tho.

As for the red truth being tyranical I don't think that's right. Battler said at first he wouldn't accept the red as true until he got "proof", Beatrice said it wasn't needed.
It was never said that it's not a good idea to still check yourself. Actually everything told us differently from that.

Then in arc 2 itself we get "You are incompetant" and a lot of laughters in red, I really doubt these were meant to be "tyranical" or to show that the red is that absolute.

Then Ryuukishi wrote the Anti-Mystery vs Anti-Fantasy letter. The whole Anti-Mystery part seems like a guide to how to handle the red to me.

To give something of a practical example.
If I read Umineko arc 1-2-3-4, and you didn't, I could tell you statements about it that are equivalent to red truth. For you all these reds would be predictive, however none of them would consider "Chiru" since neither of us would've read it in that example.

The way I see it there's a tendency to consider the red truth as fundamentally true as the fundamental laws of physics are or something. I don't think any statements could endure being "true" for long if taken to such an extent.

I think like everything in Umineko, what we need to understand is "what are we being told".

To go back to arc 8, Ryuukishi used the red about seals not being broken simply to tell us that "it's not a move we can use in our reasoning for the Murder game". It has no bearing beyond that, and I think he broke his own red very specifically to show us that.

[Jan-Poo]

Battler said at first he wouldn't accept the red as true until he got "proof", Beatrice said it wasn't needed.

Battler said just that single line and then he accepted red as the truth for the whole rest of the series. And not only in the limited field of the games, he accepted red as the truth even when Beatrice tried to deny his existence.

Then in arc 2 itself we get "You are incompetant"

He was objectively incompetent. Not his fault though.

Then Ryuukishi wrote the Anti-Mystery vs Anti-Fantasy letter. The whole Anti-Mystery part seems like a guide to how to handle the red to me.

That letter claims that everything might have been done with magic by a witch, and that was outright denied in chiru. Its purpose was to tease the readers not to show the truth.

[UsagiTenpura]

Well guess we just view things very fundamentally different for your first and third point then.
But for the second hmm what?
Battler is objectively incompetant in everything and anything? Because the red doesn't specify anything else, if you want it an absolute objective red, that's how you need to take it.

[Jan-Poo]

I never denied that red truths are context related. That has actually been one of my tenets since the beginning.

That doesn't take anything away from the red truth's objectivity though.


BTW: I'm not saying that red truths in Umineko are actually absolute. But that's how they were presented and that's how it was better if they actually were. After all, accepting the red truths was actually necessary to have a game and required trust from out part. No trust, no game, and as soon as red truth couldn't be trusted there was no longer any game, just inconclusive discussions, like this one.