[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

The fact he has simpathy for the pieces and believed them to be real people instead than pieces causes him to:
- waste a lot of time trying to prove there's a 19 person
- believe in everything the pieces say for quite a lot of time
- feel emotional pain when they die
- stop reasoning in EP 2 because he found too painful to suspect one of them

While the first 2 'merely' hamper his reasoning the last 2 definitely constitute emotional torture.

Why is it a bad thing that Battler is trusting and empathetic? It's a balancing act between Battler having enough will to fight and Battler giving up on everything and becoming cynical. Remember that the emotional pain Battler feels when the pieces die is part of what motivates him to continue struggling for their sake. Also you can certainly argue that the whole "19th Person" thing was not actually baseless speculation at all, merely that Battler was not characterizing the issue quite right. Which is understandable if he's a purely Meta-World being and/or Tohya's consciousness.

Battler being led to believe the pieces are real people deserving of sympathy is really not a detrimental thing at all and I'd be quite shocked if you were to say it's somehow morally equivalent to Erika's complete disregard for the pieces as sympathetic beings. Battler chooses to believe they experience real pain, and I suspect they probably do. The fact that he's hurt whenever they're hurt means he objects to the morality of the game and desires to put a stop to it. That's why he wants to win. This is good.

Erika's inability to empathize with the pieces means the only reason she wants to win is for winning's sake, or to show how smart she is. This is bad. But it really isn't her fault (under this notion) because she has been purposefully misled (and presumably wasn't as moral an actor as Battler in the first place). If we take full comprehension out of Erika's hands we also must absolve her of her responsibility for many of her actions. I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that somehow Erika was meant to be sympathetic when she treats people like objects.

And should we go into the Kanon and Shannon are dead thing?

Beatrice wasn't a liar until Ryukishi made her one retroactively. I still don't really see any particular point to that contradiction in ep1-4 as it's not actually necessary for Beatrice to make her point. But then neither was Shkanon in the first place, really.

So really, why should battler make easy for Erika to win?

He could at least not be ludicrously indifferent about it. This plus his ep8 performance basically paints a portrait of BATTLER as exactly the sort of thing he was supposedly fighting against in the earlier episodes. What's the point of heroic character growth if you just end up turning into a carbon copy of the villain?

But since what people are positing here is absurd, I'm not worried about that eventuality.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Kealym

A cold, dank place of no life, that involved clipping apart your body piece by piece, and can only be escaped by finding some poor sap willing to take your place in the despair?

Originally Posted by Renall

That's sick dude, she's... wait, how old is Erika supposed to be again? 16? Older? She talks like she's older in that one scene.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She's supposed to be 14.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why is it a bad thing that Battler is trusting and empathetic?

I think you misunderstood my point.
The fact that Battler is trusting and empathetic is what allows Beato's game to turn into mental torture and torment for him.
In short he too suffered mental torture and was tormented as Erika, through the manner used by Beato was different because Battler is different from Erika.

Personally I like that Battler is trusting and empathetic but I can't deny this was used against him by Beatrice, causing him pain.

If you want to say Beato never had fun abusing him this is probably true but it doesn't change the fact she mentally tortured him.
The game was supposed to be torture for them both.

It's also possible that Battler felt sorry for Erika and merely decided not to show it. He also felt sorry for being a jerk with chick Beato but didn't want to show it in the beginning.
In EP 8 he pleaded for Erika to be freed by Bern. He wasn't so cold toward her destiny... though it's understandable how he might have found hard in EP 6 to feel sympathy for Erika as she did her best to be hated.

Originally Posted by Renall

Also you can certainly argue that the whole "19th Person" thing was not actually baseless speculation at all, merely that Battler was not characterizing the issue quite right. Which is understandable if he's a purely Meta-World being and/or Tohya's consciousness.

Through not totally baseless it proves 2 things:
1) Battler didn't even know the one he was supposed to solve was a mystery and so he didn't adopt a mystery mentality
2) He chose the possibility that was less probably rationally because led by his emotions that said that the people he loved couldn't commit murder. While very human in this game is definitely a handicap for him.

Erika was advantaged. She knew it was a mystery and her reasoning wasn't lead astray by her feelings... though her disadvantages were that her reasoning was lead astray by her arrogance and the need to please Bern that wanted a certain type of solution.

So, even through Erika's 'lack of feelings' is morally wrong it makes things easier for her. Also, considering she knows the pieces on the gameboards are mere tools for a game her coldness toward them can be compared to the coldness of a mystery reader toward the characters of the book.

I don't really know a reader who feels sorry for the death of Roger Ackroyd...

Originally Posted by Renall

The fact that he's hurt whenever they're hurt means he objects to the morality of the game and desires to put a stop to it. That's why he wants to win. This is good.

That's because he hadn't understood yet what the game is. He owns tons of mystery books and don't object to the morality of them.

Originally Posted by Renall

Erika's inability to empathize with the pieces means the only reason she wants to win is for winning's sake, or to show how smart she is. This is bad. But it really isn't her fault (under this notion) because she has been purposefully misled (and presumably wasn't as moral an actor as Battler in the first place). If we take full comprehension out of Erika's hands we also must absolve her of her responsibility for many of her actions. I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that somehow Erika was meant to be sympathetic when she treats people like objects.

Honestly I'm not sure what you mean.
You seem to say she was told the pieces were just pieces when they're real people.
I guess this can be a theory but I personally go for 'the pieces are just pieces'.
If the problem is we disagree on what pieces are I guess we can't find an agreement on this one. If I misunderstood you then I'd like if you could explain your point better.

Originally Posted by Renall

Beatrice wasn't a liar until Ryukishi made her one retroactively. I still don't really see any particular point to that contradiction in ep1-4 as it's not actually necessary for Beatrice to make her point. But then neither was Shkanon in the first place, really.He could at least not be ludicrously indifferent about it.

I guess this is another thing we don't agree about and there's nothing to do about it.
For me Beato is what Ryukishi wrote. If she lied, she lied.
A character is how his writer wrote him/her, it's not like Beato had free will and could decide to be honest or a liar.
I don't really care if it could be that when Ryukishi wrote that scene the first time he was planning for her to say the truth, then he changed his mind and she became a liar. In the end she lied on the status of Shannon and Kanon's body in 3 episodes.

Kanon was killed in this room [EP 2]
6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!
The six people died instantly! [EP 3]
Kanon is dead.
Among the five people in Kyrie's group, he was the first to die.
In short, he was the 9th victim. [EP 4]
The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered! [EP 4 referring to EP 3]

However, if you want to view things differently I'm not going to argue with you.

Originally Posted by Renall

This plus his ep8 performance basically paints a portrait of BATTLER as exactly the sort of thing he was supposedly fighting against in the earlier episodes. What's the point of heroic character growth if you just end up turning into a carbon copy of the villain?

Again, if the games were nothing more than a mystery tale and not real they weren't evil per se.
It's like believing you're fighting to save the universe and then discovering you're merely on Star Wars set.
You might decide to have your character join the emperor because... well it's all fiction and your laser sword can't even cut butter.

Also it was made pretty clear that Battler had to create the 6 game and win it and, in order to do so, he has to play it the way Beato would have played it.
Either he gave up on his goal for Erika's sake or he fought Erika for Beato's sake.

What would you expect him to pick?

[AuraTwilight]

That's because he hadn't understood yet what the game is. He owns tons of mystery books and don't object to the morality of them.

Mystery books are fictional. The gameboards involve his real, live(ish) family and, as far as he was initially aware, it was really happening, since Meta-Battler himself came from a Gameboard.

[Claws_of_Death]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

There is no detail about her exact age. Remember that she is "described" as having a middle school girl appearance, but that's that.
She potentially can be 16 years old.

Not quite:



This scene happens right before Erika is described. Milady is most likely referring to Jessica who is 18 if I remember what was said in episode 7 (I believe Lion mentions her age at one point but I have no idea where that scene is).

[AuraTwilight]

Oh, really? Dammit, I cannot buy Erika being 18.

[Kealym]

Erika's age is described pretty inconsistently. She's indeed introduced as about the same age as Jessica, who's 17/18, but she clearly looks a tad younger than Jessica, and even "16" year old Shannon. It's said she looks like a middle schooler, but I recall (sorry, don't feel like hunting for it) a line about her being impressive for a high-school aged kid. When she argues with Maria in EP6, she responds to George's reproach by saying something like "Sorry, I'm just a kid, too.", right? And the clothes she wears on Rokkenjima were Jessica's from some time ago, yeah?

Of course, she might just be really slight for a 17 year old. Entirely possible. It seems silly that it wasn't simply stated, though, since in Prime, her age would've just been a matter of fact. I personally judge her as 14, possibly 15, and everything still kinda works.

[AuraTwilight]

Then again, Erika's age isn't anywhere near the least-realistic thing about her, am I right?

[Used Can]

So, can anyone care to remind me who was the 17th person?
If ShKanon count as one person, we're aware of 16 people. We were told in EP5 Erika hadn't played part in any of the previous episodes. So, I guess that rules her out as a possible 17.

[AuraTwilight]

There really isn't; if you count Shkanon as one, there's 16. Erika is only the 18th person if Shannon and Kanon are counted separately.

[Used Can]

Hmm... but if the very key to the mysteries is basically Shannon and Kanon being the same person, shouldn't they count as 1?

Or are we supposed to think something like since they achieved love they counted as real people and thus were counted separately?

[AuraTwilight]

They count as two basically because Beatrice says so. She makes the rules.

[Drifloon]

They can count as two or one depending on your perspective. The red truth can refer to them as either.

Regardless, this discussion has brought up an interesting point about the pieces. I personally think that the game boards are 'real' worlds that are being used by the beings of the higher level world for the purpose of the game; this fits better with Higurashi which I believe takes place in the same universe (Higurashi's worlds continued to exist even after they no longer served a purpose for the 'players', Rika/Frederica). Believing otherwise makes the whole plot in EP3 about Beatrice forgetting how precious life is due to her absolute power over it completely irrelevant and pointless, which I don't like.

Also, this makes Battler's approach to the game in EP6 more reasonable; if it was just a game and the pieces had no consciousness, there would be no disadvantage for him to actually kill them, but he set up a scenario where they were just playing dead. I think this was him trying to play the game in a better way then Beato.

Edit: By the way, by this theory, Meta-Battler was originally the Battler from a Fragment where the plan that Yasu wrote for EP1 was carried out and went without a hitch.

[AuraTwilight]

Regardless, this discussion has brought up an interesting point about the pieces. I personally think that the game boards are 'real' worlds that are being used by the beings of the higher level world for the purpose of the game; this fits better with Higurashi which I believe takes place in the same universe (Higurashi's worlds continued to exist even after they no longer served a purpose for the 'players', Rika/Frederica). Believing otherwise makes the whole plot in EP3 about Beatrice forgetting how precious life is due to her absolute power over it completely irrelevant and pointless, which I don't like.

This isn't at all true, in my opinion. For starters, that entire subplot was her deception. She was trying to gain Battler's trust. Second of all, Beatrice is Yasu, who isn't that terrible a person ANYway.

That, combined with Beatrice's ability as the Gamemaster to control basically everything that happens, and the existence of the One Truth, pretty much confirms that the Gameboards aren't as 'real' as, say, OUR world, or a hypothetical "Rokkenjima Prime", but I do believe that the characters can think, feel, experience, etc.

Also, this makes Battler's approach to the game in EP6 more reasonable; if it was just a game and the pieces had no consciousness, there would be no disadvantage for him to actually kill them, but he set up a scenario where they were just playing dead. I think this was him trying to play the game in a better way then Beato.

The whole point of EP6 was for Battler to demonstrate that he understood Beato's game, her rules, her heart, and her truth. If the victims of the First Twilight were faking, the implication is that the First Twilight is always fake (or atleast intended to be, before someone fucks it up with real murder). Heck, the murders being faked is one of the only ways to solve EP5's First Twilight.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This isn't at all true, in my opinion. For starters, that entire subplot was her deception. She was trying to gain Battler's trust. Second of all, Beatrice is Yasu, who isn't that terrible a person ANYway.

It isn't particularly difficult to picture that argument happening between Tohya and Ikuko though.

[Renall]

Does it really matter if the characters do or do not experience sorrow and pain? There's no way Battler can actually know. But since he isn't being sat down and told he's watching a fictional story or play, he makes the assumption that he's watching real people get really tortured.

Even if he's wrong, that's the right response to have. Beatrice can't possibly have thought Battler wouldn't have done that, as otherwise she would have said something to clarify. She was intentionally trying to get Battler to think it was real on some level. His emotional response is what she wanted and needed.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Does it really matter if the characters do or do not experience sorrow and pain? There's no way Battler can actually know. But since he isn't being sat down and told he's watching a fictional story or play, he makes the assumption that he's watching real people get really tortured.

Even if he's wrong, that's the right response to have. Beatrice can't possibly have thought Battler wouldn't have done that, as otherwise she would have said something to clarify. She was intentionally trying to get Battler to think it was real on some level. His emotional response is what she wanted and needed.

So you agree that Battler was subjected to mind torture like Erika, although his type of mind torture was different and that he was victim of deception?

[AuraTwilight]

You can't really say that, since Battler is the one who made the assumptions. Beatrice just facilitated them. She never did, however, lie about the premises or rules of the game or what he had to do, and what he COULD do, and what rights were afforded to him as a player. She didn't take advantage of his ignorance save for making valid moves such as fantasy scenes, and when he was lagging behind, she used Ronove and Virgilia to bring him up to speed.

It is in no way equivalent to Erika's hypothetical "being lied to about the very rules of her abilities" scenario, and any attempts to claim otherwise is entirely wrong and fallacious.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You can't really say that, since Battler is the one who made the assumptions. Beatrice just facilitated them.

Once she knew he was believing she was really murdering his family (and it was really easy to figure out), either she cleared up his assumption or she was torturing him.
She herself said the game was supposed to be torture.

Also she created a setting in which his assumption was entirely believable. She tricked him into believing it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She never did, however, lie about the premises or rules of the game or what he had to do, and what he COULD do, and what rights were afforded to him as a player.

She didn't lie on what he could do merely because she didn't tell him what he could do. The only help she gave him was having Virgilia saying to Battler that the fantasy scene was merely Beato's claim and he should find another claim... though we don't know if that was Beato's idea to start with or Virgilia decided to give Battler a little help in order to help Beato to get what she wanted.
The dialogues between Beato and Virgilia in EP 3 seem to suggest that Virgilia thought the sun and wind strategy through the game and suggested it to Beato after she had began to help Battler. Since Battler couldn't see those dialogues they surely couldn't be deceptive in attempt to trick him.

Plus I seem to remember how many people were complaining about how she declared Kanon and Shannon dead in red when their body wasn't dead.

And anyway the whole game was about deceiving Battler, having him see through her deception and solve it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She didn't take advantage of his ignorance save for making valid moves such as fantasy scenes,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but you sound like you're saying it was okay to take advantage of his ignorance because she had a good reason.

Also, since Battler didn't know a thing about the rules of the game, nearly every move she did took advantage of his ignorance one way or another.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

and when he was lagging behind, she used Ronove and Virgilia to bring him up to speed.

Because Beato's goal was to have Battler win in the end. This isn't either Lambda nor Battler's goal in EP 5-6.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It is in no way equivalent to Erika's hypothetical "being lied to about the very rules of her abilities" scenario, and any attempts to claim otherwise is entirely wrong and fallacious.

Honestly I can't share your opinion.
If Erika was lied about her abilities she and Battler were deceived on different things but both of them were deceived and tricked and both of them could have seen through that deception.

If you want to argue Battler was subjected to more subtle trickery than Erika it still doesn't change they both were tricked.

Sitting here, trying to calculate if the amount of trickery Erika underwent was too big compared to the one Battler suffered seems pretty pointless to me.

As long as you don't know the answer a riddle is impossible to solve.

Because Erika didn't figure the answer, for her it was impossible to solve it.
Because Battler in the end managed to find the answer it became easy to solve it.

Who knows if Erika, with given time, would have solved the riddle?
All we know is that surely no one wanted/could help her to do it.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

So you agree that Battler was subjected to mind torture like Erika, although his type of mind torture was different and that he was victim of deception?

Battler was deceived, but it is arguable whether Beatrice was the one actually trying to deceive him (she was also constrained by rules imposed upon her, remember) and to what extent he was deceiving himself.

You're also incapable of grasping the moral difference between Beatrice doing something uncomfortable for Battler and for herself for a reason she believed to be important and every single other Meta-Character doing something cruel and arbitrary to Erika for no reason whatsoever. It is not possible for this Erika theory, as stated, to be anything else but arbitrary torture. Beatrice did not expose Battler to something uncomfortable for no reason; quite the opposite, she had a reason which she believed made it necessary to do something that Battler would find uncomfortable, in order to rouse his anger against apparent moral wrongs.

That isn't to necessarily say it was the right thing to do, but it may have been the only thing that Beatrice could have done given the restrictions put on her by Bern and Lambda. By ep5 and ep6, however, Battler and Beatrice are in some sort of position to now participate in this higher-order restriction imposition, or at least to comment on it to Erika, and per this theory it is evident that they never actually do. One can conclude nothing less than that Erika is being lied to, that these lies will cause her suffering, and that they at best do not care.

Can you see that this is the natural consequence of a situation in which we accept that Erika is unable to rely on the information gathering methods she has been told that she has? Because we know for a fact how everyone acted around her and we know that nobody told her she was being lied to for no good reason. That either means nobody cared (or worse, were being actively malicious), or there was not actually a disconnect there to comment upon. Which is more likely?