[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It is completely out of character with Beatrice's motives if she's straight up fucking with Battler about one of the most core parts of herself while giving him no clues to the contrary,

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

In the red. Context, sir.

I think I'll argue Wanderer's point here. There was certainly tons of clues Beatrice left all over the place in EP1-2 for Battler. Tooya, more specifically. I listed them for everyone too.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Then why are you arguing against it?

I think the problem is Renall didn't understand what I was getting at when I said this:

Originally Posted by Kylon99

The problem is you're thinking of normal people and how normal people define death. You need to think from Beatrice's point of view instead and how she defines death, especially death for 'furniture.'

This can be misread as: "No, you're wrong! Some other death definition is the correct one!" But I was saying, "You need to think from some other point of view instead." Which doesn't necessarily invalidate the original death definition.

In other words, I want to change the context of the definition, for the purposes of seeing what other ideas we can come up with. This is not a joust to "see who is right, and by extension those who disagree must be wrong!"

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Hindsight makes everything solvable. I'll need better than sophistry.

Sorry, but it's not by hindsight that it's solvable. It's by reading EP1-2 straight that the answer becomes obvious. Granted this is hard because most of us believed in deception where there was none, but there were certainly a few that did succeed. It's not hard to see this.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And you're missing the point again.

I'm not sure what the point is other than, "Umineko sucks!" (opinion) because "Beatrice cheated!" (possible truth).

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, excuse me, but it's not an indication of agreeing with someone when you argue against them and defend the thing they're criticizing without clarifying your own position until after the fact.

There are the general principles I agree with. Then there are definitely some things that really belong on the level of opinion and not theories or facts that I do and don't agree with. I'll use this paragraph, a somewhat random one I chose as example:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The personality death thing is the worst kind of plot twist because Ryukishi tried so much to protect it to the detriment of his novel; people guessed it early on so he had to keep doing bullshit stunts to maintain the mystery and preserve the sensationalism that if you go back and look closely at what he did, he ended up fucking up some of the mysteries with plot holes and technical contradictions that ruins Umineko as a finished product, practically assuring that over the test of time it will be forgotten as a mediocre piece of work.

1. Personality death is the worst kind of plot twist -- Agree and Disagree. I can think of other things that can be even worse, like missing twin or 'it was all a dream.' But Personality Death, without good medical science backing it up isn't too hot, I think, but I'm willing to let it pass.

2. doing bullshit stunts to maintain the mystery and preserve the sensationalism -- Agree and Disagree. Though I wouldn't say it was bullshit. I would say it was entertaining, both from a story-level and watching the fan reaction.

3. He ended up fucking up some of the mysteries with plot holes and technical contradictions -- Agree and disagree. I know there were some contradictions and I can believe some plot holes were created, but I don't know if some of the mysteries were, "fucked up."

4. ... that ruins Umineko as a finished product -- Disagree. I don't think Umineko has been ruined. In fact, it's still providing some entertainment value even if it is finished as I go over again. I can see where some people would be discouraged, however, but I don't think it's been 'ruined' which is an extreme state of utter collapse? Right?

5. practically assuring that over the test of time it will be forgotten -- Agree and Disagree. People are no longer interest in it, but I believe that's more because the series has ended, similar to Higurashi. But I'm not sure there could've been anything else to ensure it did do better though. I have a feeling you have some ideas, so let us hear them.

6. as a mediocre piece of work -- Agree and Disagree. I don't think Umineko is great literature, but I'd rate it above mediocre.


I agree with the general principle that if the red text is violated to solve the detective novel mysteries, then that is pretty cheap. And on your opinions of the piece, I agree to some and disagree to some.

When I argue for or against the opinions, don't take that as I'm arguing for or against your theories, which are independent. EDIT: (Although in this particular case, I was trying to bring up a new line of thought and got counter arguments of about how I was "flat out incorrect" about something; I have no idea what... )

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

To go back with the light bulb example if Battler were to ask if the lightbulb and Beato's grandmother are dead she wouldn't be lying or cheating if she answered yes. It would be up to him to figure the lightbulb isn't a person, she isn't supposed to give him solutions.

More than that, I don't think we should go back to the light bulb example at all. It's almost as nonsensical as as Renall's "locked = made of wood" example is.

If I were to say "Fred and Natsuhi are dead" and later it was suddenly revealed that, unconnected to anything, "Fred" actually referred to a light bulb, I think anybody would be quite reasonable in getting mad at me. However, that isn't even remotely comparable to a situation where I describe a person-like being as dead and then spend the entire rest of my story explaining the philosophy behind it.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

More than that, I don't think we should go back to the light bulb example at all. It's disingenuous rot, almost as much as Renall's "locked = made of wood" example is.

If I were to say "Fred and Natsuhi are dead" and later it was suddenly revealed that, unconnected to anything, "Fred" actually referred to a light bulb, I think anybody would be quite reasonable in getting mad at me. However, that isn't even remotely comparable to a situation where I describe a person-like being as dead and then spend the entire rest of my story explaining the philosophy behind it.

You're probably right. What stuck me is that it was Battler who requested Beato to repeat it, inviting the trick. Also, if Beato had changed the sentence or refused to repeat it she would have given a huge hint toward the truth.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

You're trying to have it both ways. If Beatrice's definition of "dead" consistently doesn't mean actual physical death, then she will not refer to actual physical death and "her" definition of death as though the two are identical.

Dead people don't exist. ===> To no longer exist is to be dead.

Voila. Consistency.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

In the red. Context, sir.

Yeah I kind of figured that's what you meant, but I don't see why the clues have to be in the red. A clue is still a clue; if it made you question whether that red meant what you originally thought it meant, then it did its job.

If we were introduced to the personality death enigma with the red of EP3 earlier on, and then got all the clues from EP1 and EP2 afterword, I wonder if people would have approached the problem completely differently.

[rogerpepitone]

Regarding unusual definitions:

The first mention of "instant death".

Originally Posted by Episode 3

`#ff0000The six people died instantly!#ffffff`@` By instant death, I mean that as soon as they were attacked, they became incapable of action.`\

`Well, in its full meaning, it could take several seconds or even minutes for them to die.`@` But no matter what, it would be completely impossible for them to take any action of their own will.`@` In that sense, I can state that they died instantly!"`\


Beatrice uses an unusual definition of "died instantly" here (for example, a person who is hit over the head, knocked unconscious, and dies an hour later from internal bleeding would qualify under her definition, but not under any typical definition of the phrase). As such, she finds the need to define it immediately.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Beato wanted you to solve it, so she made this game...the riddles of this tale...solvable.

Yes, I am perfectly aware of that, but Beato didn't just hope that Battler would solve the mysteries and deny her, she wanted to be acknowledged and understood by him. After all, in Umineko there is the tendency to link the murders with the heart o the one committing them, which is sort of what Beatrice was hoping for. Yeah, it seems awfully roundabout, but what about Beatrice as a character isn't?

[GreyZone]

She wants Battler to understand her, but not by just saying "OK, I believe every word you say."

In EP8 Battler says: "To stop thinking means giving up, right?" She didn't want him to surrender as he did in EP2.
We could say she wanted him to be able to use golden truth.

[AuraTwilight]

This can be misread as: "No, you're wrong! Some other death definition is the correct one!" But I was saying, "You need to think from some other point of view instead." Which doesn't necessarily invalidate the original death definition.

In other words, I want to change the context of the definition, for the purposes of seeing what other ideas we can come up with. This is not a joust to "see who is right, and by extension those who disagree must be wrong!"

I understood that, I just don't think it validates anything, since Ryukishi wrote her that way, best case scenario. Meaning he wrote a character in a certain way just to trick the audience in an unfair, indefensible, childish way.

Sorry, but it's not by hindsight that it's solvable. It's by reading EP1-2 straight that the answer becomes obvious. Granted this is hard because most of us believed in deception where there was none, but there were certainly a few that did succeed. It's not hard to see this.

The thing is, you're not doing this with any sort of self-bias filter or blind read. You already know the answer. You know what's important and what isn't, already. You know what seemingly innocuous comments are actually clues.

Even if we did accept everything you said, it doesn't change the actual problem, and it doesn't change that Battler could not be fairly expected to pick up on it because he has a personal investment none of us do.

I'm not sure what the point is other than, "Umineko sucks!" (opinion) because "Beatrice cheated!" (possible truth).

"Umineko sucks" has nothing to do with it. :P

1. Personality death is the worst kind of plot twist -- Agree and Disagree. I can think of other things that can be even worse, like missing twin or 'it was all a dream.' But Personality Death, without good medical science backing it up isn't too hot, I think, but I'm willing to let it pass.

It's not the content that's the problem, it's the execution and the reasoning used to protect it. It's like the plot twist of Heavy Rain

Spoiler for SPOILERS:

where it turns out it was the detective the whole time, but you can't reasonably expect to figure out he did it because the game lies to you in a way it never does in any other part, and it has his self-narration lie to an audience he doesn't know is there. The actual in-continuity quality of "he was the killer" aside, it's the worst kind of twist because the entire story was ruined by how the twist was executed.

2. doing bullshit stunts to maintain the mystery and preserve the sensationalism -- Agree and Disagree. Though I wouldn't say it was bullshit. I would say it was entertaining, both from a story-level and watching the fan reaction.

It was entertaining, which is why he did it. The problem is once the cat's out of the bag, all you have is the realization that he wasn't taking his own rules seriously. You have a story that is dated and can't really 'live' after it's original runtime. It's not "made to last."

4. ... that ruins Umineko as a finished product -- Disagree. I don't think Umineko has been ruined. In fact, it's still providing some entertainment value even if it is finished as I go over again. I can see where some people would be discouraged, however, but I don't think it's been 'ruined' which is an extreme state of utter collapse? Right?

See above. He undermined the quality of his own novel in such a way that someone who comes to read it after the fact won't have the same enjoyment we did while waiting for several years inbetween episodes.

Yeah I kind of figured that's what you meant, but I don't see why the clues have to be in the red.

That's not what I meant at all. Forget it.

Yes, I am perfectly aware of that, but Beato didn't just hope that Battler would solve the mysteries and deny her, she wanted to be acknowledged and understood by him. After all, in Umineko there is the tendency to link the murders with the heart o the one committing them, which is sort of what Beatrice was hoping for. Yeah, it seems awfully roundabout, but what about Beatrice as a character isn't?

If she wants Battler to understand her, it's her responsibility to provide the information necessary for Battler to come to the proper conclusion. She keeps distracting him with unnecessary side issues, riles him up emotionally so that he can't think rationally, and then tricks him with a semantic argument that no one in their right minds would be able to see through it and come to some non-sensical train of thought as she expects.

Especially when she keeps showing him magical, three-dimensional imagery of his family members being brutally murdered. That's something people keep forgetting; Battler's not playing the same way we are. He keeps getting fucking emotionally violated constantly.

At the very least, she needed to make sure to have no equated Shannon and Kanon with other characters. With a statement like Shannon, Kanon, Genji, Kumasawa, Gohda, and Kinzo are dead, you have no reason to believe that 'dead' means different things for SOME of the characters.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Regarding unusual definitions:

The first mention of "instant death".

Beatrice uses an unusual definition of "died instantly" here (for example, a person who is hit over the head, knocked unconscious, and dies an hour later from internal bleeding would qualify under her definition, but not under any typical definition of the phrase). As such, she finds the need to define it immediately.

Nice catch! I've reread that part yesterday and yes I missed the importance of that definition.

Also, about Beato delivering her message in the correct manner or not:

"......Next time you want to send a love letter, I suggest that you just write 'I love you'. ...If you make it too roundabout and confusing, no one's gonna be able to figure it out."

Battler himself believed Beato made her whole message too confusing to be understood properly. There's to say that although Beato wanted to be understood she evidently had issues at explaining the whole thing or she could have gone to Battler and told him straight out everything.

So, while a side of her wanted him to figure out that Shannon and Kanon were 'different' from the rest, the other did it best to keep it hidden.

It fits with Virgilia's metaphor of a shy person in love who wants the other to figure out she loves him but she's not going to tell him straight in his face 'hey, I love you, what do you think about me?' and actually if prodded might end up saying the exact opposite, too afraid to be rejected to admit her feelings.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

He undermined the quality of his own novel in such a way that someone who comes to read it after the fact won't have the same enjoyment we did while waiting for several years inbetween episodes.

Even though I don't understand why that would happen, I do agree with you. Ryukishi seems to me to have got way too attached in the answer and back-story he thought of, which in the end resulted to the story failing to rise to its full potential.

Well, personally I enjoyed Umineko a lot as it is anyway, though I don't say it couldn't have been way better, even perfect.

If she wants Battler to understand her, it's her responsibility to provide the information necessary for Battler to come to the proper conclusion. She keeps distracting him with unnecessary side issues, riles him up emotionally so that he can't think rationally, and then tricks him with a semantic argument that no one in their right minds would be able to see through it and come to some non-sensical train of thought as she expects.

I don't see how we're saying something that different here. She's deliberately deceiving him while hoping him to see through the deception, while at the same time making him accept her as a witch (which does not imply him to stop thinking). The only thing I disagree with is the fact that Beatrice failed to give clues that would lead him to the desired conclusion. Although she was economical with her hints and did complicate things way too much it is still possible to solve it anyway.

Especially when she keeps showing him magical, three-dimensional imagery of his family members being brutally murdered. That's something people keep forgetting; Battler's not playing the same way we are. He keeps getting fucking emotionally violated constantly.

Yes, but neither Beatrice seems to be aware of that. Because she sees human lives as pieces on a game board, which is what they are for her, to Battler's frustration, it doesn't mean Battler does too, which is kinda one of the main conflicts in EP3.

At the very least, she needed to make sure to have no equated Shannon and Kanon with other characters. With a statement like Shannon, Kanon, Genji, Kumasawa, Gohda, and Kinzo are dead, you have no reason to believe that 'dead' means different things for SOME of the characters.

And what was she supposed to say? For example: "Genji, Kumasawa, Gohda, and Kinzo are dead oh, and Shannon and Kanon are dead too, but since they are different personalities of the same person their death doesn't count as permanent and they can be revived anytime." Something like that would completely ruin the whole purpose of everything.

Though it's not like I believe it was stated in the way it was to avoid giving it out, I completely agree with you that it was done knowingly to confuse the readers but I don't see how that violates any of the rules (especially when it shows us Beatrice actually reviving Shannon right in front of our eyes).

[Wanderer]

I actually find the description of Beatrice's deception as "childish" to be quite interesting in light of Kylon99's recent megapost about the theme of children verses adults.

[AuraTwilight]

And what was she supposed to say? For example: "Genji, Kumasawa, Gohda, and Kinzo are dead oh, and Shannon and Kanon are dead too, but since they are different personalities of the same person their death doesn't count as permanent and they can be revived anytime." Something like that would completely ruin the whole purpose of everything.

Well, no. And you're being fallacious. Renall and I have already raised much easier alternatives, like Shannon and Kanon have been removed from the board or Yes, they were dead, but I REVIVED THEM!

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, no. And you're being fallacious. Renall and I have already raised much easier alternatives, like Shannon and Kanon have been removed from the board or Yes, they were dead, but I REVIVED THEM!

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. This would raise serious questions on the subject. Like, 'why go to the trouble of differentiating their death from all the other pieces? Something's fishy...' Of course, there's always: 'I removed six pieces from the game board, Genji, Shannon, Kumasawa e.t.c', but it's again putting it in the same group as the normal deaths. At any rate, differentiating just Kanon's and Shannon's death would make it ridiculously easy to figure out.

The second red truth you're proposing would also raise greater problems by making it even more confusing. A clueless person who still hasn't figured it out would think 'Is it even possible to revive dead people? Screw this, it's not possible without magic, I give up'. After all, I think the whole poing of Shkannon(trice) was to create insane tricks like that.

[GreyZone]

It's not impossible! Nanjo used Defibrilators!

Or Their hearts mysteriously started to beat again!


But don't forget, that red truth permanently damages the witches' options. When Kanon's death in EP1 was claimed to be accident, she didn't reply. Lambda did, but Battler never got to know that. However if Beato said "Kanon did not die in an Accident", then Battler would say illness or other natural death...
If she responded again and claimed that it is not the right answer too, then Battler would possibly get to the right answer, which Beato didn't want yet.

[GuestSpeaker]

Furthermore, in regards to earlier comments about it not being fair if we couldn't tell the difference between Beato pretending to be Kanon or Kanon himself, I'd say that since we know by red that no-one would mistake Kanon and no-one can use his name but Kanon, and we also know that Kanon was dead, either that scene was an outright lie or someone has the ability to bring Kanon back to life and become him at will. That is a bit of a clue in my books.

Also, lets suspend red for one second, the fact someone could perfectly copy Kanon's voice when he is dead sort of implies that whatever was him was somehow reproducible by someone else.

[AuraTwilight]

Furthermore, in regards to earlier comments about it not being fair if we couldn't tell the difference between Beato pretending to be Kanon or Kanon himself, I'd say that since we know by red that no-one would mistake Kanon and no-one can use his name but Kanon, and we also know that Kanon was dead, either that scene was an outright lie or someone has the ability to bring Kanon back to life and become him at will. That is a bit of a clue in my books.

But BATTLER DOESN'T KNOW THAT because he wasn't there fore half those reds. Also, a mystery that needs the Reds to be solvable is really shitty, since the Witch Hunters don't have access to them. It also doesn't matter because the whole Personality Death thing means you can lie in the Red by redefining terms. What if I define Kanon as "whoever is pretending to be him"?

Also, lets suspend red for one second, the fact someone could perfectly copy Kanon's voice when he is dead sort of implies that whatever was him was somehow reproducible by someone else.

Tape recorders. Acting. Disguise. A twin brother. A double-blind imitation. Your statement here is incorrect, because Kanon isn't more "reproducible" than any other human who has ever lived on the face of the planet.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But BATTLER DOESN'T KNOW THAT because he wasn't there fore half those reds. Also, a mystery that needs the Reds to be solvable is really shitty, since the Witch Hunters don't have access to them. It also doesn't matter because the whole Personality Death thing means you can lie in the Red by redefining terms. What if I define Kanon as "whoever is pretending to be him"?

1. Eh, I'll assume you've always had this problem 'cause I'm pretty certain EP1 isn't entirely solvable without Lambda's reds at the very end of Alliance
2. Well, we have no idea what the Witch Hunters have access to. And it's easier to say the Red narrows down possible answers, rather than make an answer possible.
3. If you used that definition consistently, then sure, why not. Though I imagine you'd have to use quite a few carefully worded "Repeat it in red!" moments to evade detection. I'll also assume you have some thematically relevant conceit about why the name "Kanon" was in the public domain.

[GuestSpeaker]

Tape recorders. Acting. Disguise. A twin brother. A double-blind imitation.

But that would surely violate Knox's rules about clues presented. Anyway, from what we usually see in Umineko, other than a few of the bigger secrets needed to keep the mystery alive over a serial, all tricks are much simpler than that. Yes small bombs COULD be a correct answer, but the door being unlocked sure is easier.

Besides, in the end it doesn't realllyyy matter if game piece or meta battler couldn't solve it all that easily, because we could solve it (and some did) with the info provided. Also, the reason you can find the correct answer without the reds is that if you do have the correct answer, all mysteries fall into place with one trick (ie Shkannon). The red just helps cut down speculation.

[Drifloon]

See above. He undermined the quality of his own novel in such a way that someone who comes to read it after the fact won't have the same enjoyment we did while waiting for several years inbetween episodes.

Really? Because I played it all after all eight episodes were released and I get the feeling that I actually enjoyed it MORE than you guys who put so much effort into solving it - or at least I felt more satisfied with the ending than you did. Heck, I actually took the game as a fantasy for the most part on my first playthrough and saw EP7's 'answer' as the backstory for the fantastical witch Beatrice that didn't count as a human, rather than an actual human culprit theory. And I still enjoyed that episode very much without understanding what it was really trying to convey.

It may seem to you that the game is unenjoyable to those who didn't have the same 'battle' with the author as you guys did, but I assure you that it isn't true. I was constantly amazed by the unpredictability and everchanging nature of the story, and enjoyed it a lot without trying in the slightest to solve it.

Now that I DO know the solution, I do kind of wish that Ryukishi would have been less misleading about it, but I still think that the game is a really great story however well or poorly the solution holds up, and I kind of wish people would view it as a story more than a mystery, like people do with Higurashi. (Although I know Ryukishi kind of shot himself in the foot here by constantly advertising it as a mystery...but that has no effect on how someone enjoys the fully completed work, going into it blind.)

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also, a mystery that needs the Reds to be solvable is really shitty, since the Witch Hunters don't have access to them

I'm not sure that this is what you're saying but...For the Witch Hunters, the Rokenjima Serial Murder Case is not a mystery novel but an actual event, therefore, nothing guarantees that it is solvable for them, like any incident occuring in real life.

It also doesn't matter because the whole Personality Death thing means you can lie in the Red by redefining terms. What if I define Kanon as "whoever is pretending to be him"?

Yeah, it sounds pretty unfair if you put it like that. And there were some really nasty word-plays in Umineko, but actually, Kanon isn't defined as a different person than the one he is, right?

Originally Posted by Drifloon

Really? Because I played it all after all eight episodes were released and I get the feeling that I actually enjoyed it MORE than you guys who put so much effort into solving it - or at least I felt more satisfied with the ending than you did. Heck, I actually took the game as a fantasy for the most part on my first playthrough and saw EP7's 'answer' as the backstory for the fantastical witch Beatrice that didn't count as a human, rather than an actual human culprit theory. And I still enjoyed that episode very much without understanding what it was really trying to convey.

It may seem to you that the game is unenjoyable to those who didn't have the same 'battle' with the author as you guys did, but I assure you that it isn't true. I was constantly amazed by the unpredictability and everchanging nature of the story, and enjoyed it a lot without trying in the slightest to solve it.

Now that I DO know the solution, I do kind of wish that Ryukishi would have been less misleading about it, but I still think that the game is a really great story however well or poorly the solution holds up, and I kind of wish people would view it as a story more than a mystery, like people do with Higurashi. (Although I know Ryukishi kind of shot himself in the foot here by constantly advertising it as a mystery...but that has no effect on how someone enjoys the fully completed work, going into it blind.)

Good for you, but when Ryukishi says 'Umineko is a logic-puzzle and that's how it is meant to be enjoyed' that's actually like rubbing his failure to his face. And well, it sounds a bit rude to say 'glad I didn't wreck my brains like you guys'.

It's not like I disagree that Umineko would make for a hell of a story even wihtout the mystery aspects of it, just like Higurashi was, but I think removing it would certainly spoil it a lot. And by the way, neither did I have to wait for years between episodes (until Chiru, at least), I had EP1-4 all in a row, and as much as I enjoyed it, the real fun for me was when I shut off the PC and pondered about it and that didn't prevent me from enjoying the ending. Umineko did have the potential to get a reader seriously hooked, but that was mostly the thrill of the mystery that existed, that made you want to find a solution as soon as possible. Saying you don't care and will just wait to see it in the Answer Arcs seems like picking the easy solution to me (and poses the danger of understanding nothing becuase of the roundabout way the answers are given).