[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

That is not what I am trying to make you two understand. I'll state it bluntly, if having a detective is a rule and there is no detective, that would be a logic error.

No it would mean the rule does not apply to the game and if it doesn't apply then there is no logic error. In other words the rule would be debunked the moment it was said in EP7 and we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[Smeckledorf]

OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.

I am trying to say episode 6 was broken and because of that did not follow all of the rules of the game and that would be why there is not a detective.

Originally Posted by Judoh

No it would mean the rule does not apply to the game and if it doesn't apply then there is no logic error. In other words the rule would be debunked the moment it was said in EP7 and we wouldn't even be talking about this.

That is your interpretation. If you are so sure that you are right, then why even debate the point with me?

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.

I don't know about the number of detectives. I have no opinion on that as of yet. I'm just concerned about whether Van Dine rules hold for all episodes or not. I believe this is an important point... actually, even if in the case where they *almost* hold.

Proving something happened or didn't happen is irrelevant. You did show that clearly Battler ended up not being the detective in EP5 so that's fine. But it doesn't show that the rule is being followed over all the episodes.

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

I am trying to say episode 6 was broken and because of that did not follow all of the rules of the game and that would be why there is not a detective.

This, is what I was trying to sort out. 8) Just say it first next time. When you said 'logic error' that conjured up images of the specific logic error event; that is Battler being stuck/not stuck in the guest room.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.

Look I'll state all three rules for you

4. The detective must not be the culprit


6. A Detective novel must have a detective in it


9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction —
one deus ex machina.

To fix your crummy rule 6 in EP6 you must break either rule 4 or rule 9. And this doesn't cause a logic error it just breaks your own rules.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I don't know about the number of detectives. I have no opinion on that as of yet. I'm just concerned about whether Van Dine rules hold for all episodes or not. I believe this is an important point... actually, even if in the case where they *almost* hold.

Proving something happened or didn't happen is irrelevant. You did show that clearly Battler ended up not being the detective in EP5 so that's fine. But it doesn't show that the rule is being followed over all the episodes.




This, is what I was trying to sort out. 8) Just say it first next time. When you said 'logic error' that conjured up images of the specific logic error event; that is Battler being stuck/not stuck in the guest room.

I'm not sure either. If I was sure then I wouldn't be debating the point.
Apparently, I am just really bad at typing what I am thinking. That is what I meant the first time I posted it but I couldn't think of a clearer way at the time to present it. Likely, Ryukishi wouldn't hold the rules to verbatim anyways. The Knox rules were changed, after all.

Originally Posted by Judoh

To fix your crummy rule 6 in EP6 you must break either rule 4 or rule 9. And this doesn't cause a logic error it just breaks your own rules.

I am not breaking any rules. Let me put it this way, you aren't going to use a 3-legged monkey as an example of what monkeys are. Why would you use the broken episode as an example of what an episode should be?

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Judoh

*snip*

I may actually have a solution to this dilemma.

Ep6 is not a detective novel.

Wouldn't that clear up a few inconsistencies?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

I may actually have a solution to this dilemma.

Ep6 is not a detective novel.

Wouldn't that clear up a few inconsistencies?

Lol, I am not sure why people do that 'snip' thing. However, that would make sense.

[Renall]

Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!

Bah you and your silly romance theories. <DINE THE DEATH!! SENTENCE TO DEATH!!> lol

Now that I think about it that would be something Dine would exist for. We get an argument in red and blue and Dine comes along and.. *whistle* All right break it up people! There's no love to see here! break it up!

[Oliver]

...No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to Dine....

[Judoh]

In all seriousness I hope the Dine Rules get a mention, but I don't think they'll be in red since very few of them are 100% certain. Most of them are on shaky ground. I'd like them to be in blue or gold if they do get a mention though. Probably gold because it has good comedic value and I want to see more of the golden truth. Even if it's just doomed to fail...

[Oliver]

I think it's high time for another colour. Pink has always been a fan favourite...

[Horse]

I'm not a fan of Umineko. I was only in for Akiko Shikata and occasional (really occasional) BGMs from Luck Ganriki...

The new Luck Ganriki/dai OP with Ganrikis regular singers is wonderful. Just wanted to say that, thanks.

[DgBarca]

I have another theory for the mystery woman from the portrait....
It's maybe the master of the Fukuin house ? And maybe Shannon and Kanon mother/father...(Why all my theories are "s/he X mother/father")
And maybe she is Kinzo's illegitimate child with Human-Beato.

[Racheya-sama]

It is entirely plausible that Dine has nothing to do with Ep 7, so I don't know why everyone is getting so het up about it XD

[cmos]

Originally Posted by Judoh

4. The detective must not be the culprit

What about Erika cannot be the culprit, because it is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story. A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT, stated Dlanor in the 5th game. She may be a murderer, but not 'the culprit'.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by cmos

What about Erika cannot be the culprit, because it is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story. A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT, stated Dlanor in the 5th game. She may be a murderer, but not 'the culprit'.

Depends on what exactly an "early part of the story" constitutes and whether an Episode is a distinct story when taken by itself.

It's obvious Erika cannot be "the culprit" for any episodes she doesn't feature in, but that can also be because she doesn't exist there, which is said in red during her introduction. But in Episode 5, it is also said that Furudo Erika is not the culprit. and it's not clear how far does this excuse apply.

So what exactly a culprit is in this series?...

EDIT: Although, Furudo Erika may be the detective, and that wouldn't stop a Piece-Known-As-Erika-In-Red distinct from Furudo Erika from being the culprit...

[Linkin Battler]

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!

I also think it is a romance, after reading the ten commandments for romance novel I had no doubts...!


However, summing up, he can be:

- S. S. Van Dine (the most likely, considering the pendant that could be SSVD simbol, the hints in EP2 OP and EP5, the yellow eyes, the blue coat and the absence of one-winged eagle at all)
- young Kinzo
- young Rudolph
- The boy from nineteen years ago
- The other Battler
- adult Kanon
- Maria's father
- Pendragon
- adult George (???)
- one of the servants cited in the various episodes (Reinon, Runon, Manon, Renon)
- a never cited new character

While she can be:

- the real form of Beatrice (one of the most likely, considering she is probably a new character, the double eagle, the roses, the ring, the portrait of Beatrice and the butterfly brooch. And then would be Dine probably)
- Jessica (one of the most likely, considering the hair, the clothes that resembles Krauss, the Natsuhi's neckerchief, the ring of the headship, etc. butwithstanding, she has no breast and a different eye-style, furthermore because of the presence of Beatrice's portrait it should be 1986. If she is Jessica, he could be Kanon/George/Dine)
- Rosa (a very similar hairstyle, but a completely different color and eye-style. Then he would be Maria's father)
- Asumu (probably not, since she should not wear the eagle)
- ShKannon / ShKannontrice (this option gives me the shivers, however... look at the position of the eagle, in the collar as Kanon and in the leg as Shannon. Furthermore there is the brooch...!)
- Kinzo's wife (probably not, since she had black hair)
- Kinzo's lover, the one she met in the war period (one of the most likely, even though the presence of the portrait hints they're in 1986. Then he would be Kinzo)
- The Beatrice Rosa met (she had very bad memories of the period)
- one of the servants cited in the various episodes (Reinon, Runon, Manon, Renon)
- one of the new heads in one future (EP5 future?)
- a never cited new character

I tend to think they are the real form of Beatrice (that could be the human Beatrice committing the homicides in my theory) and Dine
However, I think that this portrait is the fullest thing of fake hints ever seen. There probably are more fake hints in that portrait than in the whole novel. Ryu07 is trolling us again.

[Pinguma]

Originally Posted by Horse

I'm not a fan of Umineko. I was only in for Akiko Shikata and occasional (really occasional) BGMs from Luck Ganriki...

The new Luck Ganriki/dai OP with Ganrikis regular singers is wonderful. Just wanted to say that, thanks.

Good man.

When I first saw the image I did kinda think the girl was a future Maria or a more likely Jessica. Then I noticed the lack of chest, which caused memories of Jessica singing 'Tsurupettan~' come flooding back, making me bury my hands in my face at the very thought I had considered. Would be nice of Ryu to not just add another character into the fray of 1986...again, so I really hope the girl is the likely either future or past character to help uncover the mystery. Similarly with the guy, but he seems a likely meta anyway.

Still haven't had the time to go through EP6 but I've been spoiled for the majority/maybe all of it anyway, so I'm honestly looking forward to this episode, the idea of 'the cold harsh truth', the opening, it all just seems amazing. Should be a good one.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Bah you and your silly romance theories. <DINE THE DEATH!! SENTENCE TO DEATH!!> lol

Now that I think about it that would be something Dine would exist for. We get an argument in red and blue and Dine comes along and.. *whistle* All right break it up people! There's no love to see here! break it up!

No no no it will be like this:

After midnight we'll all DINE in hell!!! In the shades...

THIS IS ROKKENJIMAAAAAA!

anyway sorry to bring this up but I need to specify what a true scientific method would adress this issue:

I am not breaking any rules. Let me put it this way, you aren't going to use a 3-legged monkey as an example of what monkeys are. Why would you use the broken episode as an example of what an episode should be?

This example assumes you already know what monkeys are which however is the very thing you must determine.

To make this comparison work you need to think of a completely unknown animal species or assume the scientist has never seen a monkey before.

So the 3-legged monkey is the only one you have, you absolutely know nothing about any other 2-legged monkey. And because of that you have no way to determine that this 3-legged monkey is abnormal in any way, since "abnormality" is defined as a deviance from a norm found in the total population.

considering the data in their possession the scientists should conclude that "monkeys have 3 legs" because that's the facts they have.

Consider this fact. In most cases we only have but one fossil of certain dinosaurs species. Not once a paleontologist dared to say "I believe this species was slightly different from this, because I believe this specimen was abnormal". The whole scientific community would laugh at that.