|
There are many Beatrices and they have a plan?
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Crashing this mansion with no survivors
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
I've been slowly working my way through the Steam version of the game (or the first half of the game at any rate), and there's a certain humor in watching Battler's situation escalate in spite of his repeated denials. Dude's surrounded by a constantly multiplying panoply of witches, demons, and angels engaging in magical truth battles (and occasionally regular battles), yet there he is crossing his arms and refusing to admit the existence of the supernatural. Witches? Pure poppycock. *ducks as a magical demon stake flies overhead and impales the detective projection of some kind of astral being or something* Poppycock, I say!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:If it's true I have to order mackerel. Get ordering.  It was not yet said in red that Kanon was in the room. 'Everyone,' sure, but Kanon (who does not actually exist beyond being an alternate identity of Sayo) specifically? Not established. Just like the Schrödinger's cat analogy that had been brought up before a long time ago, two different truths can exist at same time in this game board until the 'box' is opened. What this means is that at the very minimum everyone in one of the rooms who are witnessing Shannon or Kanon as separate beings is going to be killed in the end, leaving the presence of an individual Shannon or Kanon irrelevant since no survivors will be left to verify it. I personally predict that everyone in the room with Kanon in it will be killed because Gohda is there, and Gohda is just plain not allowed to survive to the end. Ever.  Rangpur posted:I've been slowly working my way through the Steam version of the game (or the first half of the game at any rate), and there's a certain humor in watching Battler's situation escalate in spite of his repeated denials. Dude's surrounded by a constantly multiplying panoply of witches, demons, and angels engaging in magical truth battles (and occasionally regular battles), yet there he is crossing his arms and refusing to admit the existence of the supernatural. Our protagonist. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
EagerSleeper posted:It was not yet said in red that Kanon was in the room. 'Everyone,' sure, but Kanon (who does not actually exist beyond being an alternate identity of Sayo) specifically? Not established. Just like the Schrödinger's cat analogy that had been brought up before a long time ago, two different truths can exist at same time in this game board until the 'box' is opened. What this means is that at the very minimum everyone in one of the rooms who are witnessing Shannon or Kanon as separate beings is going to be killed in the end, leaving the presence of an individual Shannon or Kanon irrelevant since no survivors will be left to verify it. I personally predict that everyone in the room with Kanon in it will be killed because Gohda is there, and Gohda is just plain not allowed to survive to the end. Ever. Literally everyone in both rooms is going to die by the end. None Survive. All die. That's how this game works. By this reasoning, nothing we are ever shown has any meaning unless it's in red. People can lie in their persepctive, sure, but they have to have a reason for lying. In episode 4 that reason was probably being threatened with many guns. Right now Krauss and Rudolf have the guns, so why would they lie? And who are they lying to, anyway? Erika? At this point, even if her viewpoint is objective, I don't think she's actually interested in the truth as much as winning, so she'd just go along with whatever lie as long as it doesn't hurt her theory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Is this the fatal mistake that ships Battler and Erika? Have we been looking at the S=K=B theory the wrong way? How long can we keep denying the existence of witches? Find out next time, on the next episode of Rokkenball B(eatrice)!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I feel like Erika's door seals have a totally trivial solution: just have the people open the door to go talk to each other. This breaks both seals, and also gets them very suspicious of Erika, which limits her ability to do stuff even if she's trying to frame herself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Qrr posted:I feel like Erika's door seals have a totally trivial solution: just have the people open the door to go talk to each other. This breaks both seals, and also gets them very suspicious of Erika, which limits her ability to do stuff even if she's trying to frame herself. That's why she specifically reminded them multiple times to stay safe inside the rooms no matter what. For safety purposes, of course. She even specifically pointed out to Hideyoshi to not turn his back on George/Shannon, and the groups have everything they'll need to survive in there until the police arrive. So she's forcing Battler to limit the suspects unless both rooms are specifically broken. How well this move will turn out, I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:That's why she specifically reminded them multiple times to stay safe inside the rooms no matter what. For safety purposes, of course. She even specifically pointed out to Hideyoshi to not turn his back on George/Shannon, and the groups have everything they'll need to survive in there until the police arrive. But she also provided an example of avoiding those safety concerns to talk to the servants. Battler could arrange a similar thought for the people in one of the rooms. The 6 person room could even preserve wolves and sheep by sending one servant and one non-servant - Rudolf could go, since Krauss wants to be with Jessica. It's a powerful move, and seems fairly easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Literally everyone in both rooms is going to die by the end. None Survive. All die. That's how this game works. By this reasoning, nothing we are ever shown has any meaning unless it's in red. People can lie in their persepctive, sure, but they have to have a reason for lying. In episode 4 that reason was probably being threatened with many guns. Right now Krauss and Rudolf have the guns, so why would they lie? And who are they lying to, anyway? Erika? At this point, even if her viewpoint is objective, I don't think she's actually interested in the truth as much as winning, so she'd just go along with whatever lie as long as it doesn't hurt her theory. There was a line earlier about meta Erika not being interested in anything that wasn't in red, and even earlier than that Battler had a breakdown about not being able to trust anything that wasn't in red. The game later hinted that non-red parts of the game master's story were still valuable in their own way, though the audience may need to take care of looking at the hidden meaning. Without love, it can't be seen, so I'm going to assume that the whole lie about Shannon/Kanon is indeed of significance in the overall picture, even if it is for now narrative fuckery. (I kinda consider Kanon to be Shannon's version of Sakutaro, but more extreme). I'm not sure what you mean by "people can lie in their persepctive, sure, but they have to have a reason for lying." I don't think the pieces on the game board are lying, but meta Battler who's controlling them in regards to Shannon/Kanon definitely is. Who would he be lying to then? To the audience, us and Erika. I do agree with you though that Erika probably doesn't care much for the truth that meta Battler is hinting all over the place with ShKannon, and will try to pull a nuclear answer to the mystery just like last episode. Crackpot theory: I kinda said that I suspect Kanon is Shannon's version of Sakutaro, and in that regard perhaps there's a physical aspect of Kanon that Shannon projects him into. Just like Maria needs a cloth doll to make Sakutaro, perhaps Shannon has a similar object for Kanon, something most likely wearable so she can become him whenever she needs to dissociate/be disguised/do some mudering. I suspect a physical object actually being "Kanon" so that meta Battler or Beatrice can say that Kanon is in a different room without actually lying. What physical object do I suspect this of in this theory that will most likely be disproven immediately? Probably the jewel brooch thing that Kanon/Shannon are wearing the portrait art. EagerSleeper fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Right now Krauss and Rudolf have the guns, so why would they lie? Same as always. DOLLA DOLLA BILLS* Y'ALL * 円
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
witchcore ricepunk posted:Same as always. DOLLA DOLLA BILLS* Y'ALL How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son? Especially if that money has already been paid out. EagerSleeper posted:I'm not sure what you mean by "people can lie in their persepctive, sure, but they have to have a reason for lying." I don't think the pieces on the game board are lying, but meta Battler who's controlling them in regards to Shannon/Kanon definitely is. Battler controls the pieces, sure, but they still can't do anything the person couldn't do, and they are bad a doing things the person wouldn't do. Right now, Rudolf and Krauss are sitting there in agreement that Kanon is in that room, and tacitly saying the same to Hideyoshi and Erika by not going to the next room an saying "Hey, where the gently caress is Kanon?" Lying about this without a good reason should easily fall into the category of "things Rudolf/Krauss wouldn't do" so they'll be bad at it. Meaning if the intention is to mislead Erika it's a pretty poor move that's likely to fail. The sad thing is it'd be way easier to argue that SnK's body is in the cousin's room, and it's everyone in the next room over that is lying. Then you just have to propose a way that 'Shannon' can be in a place without her physical human body being there. But then you'd have to reevaluate your theory to fit what's presented instead of just shouting "MONEY WILL MAKE ANYONE DO ANYTHING" and "Every single person on the island is in on the murders"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son? Well, ZiegeDame, how much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
alcharagia posted:Well, ZiegeDame, how much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son? But what if he doesn't have a wife and kid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:The sad thing is it'd be way easier to argue that SnK's body is in the cousin's room, and it's everyone in the next room over that is lying. Then you just have to propose a way that 'Shannon' can be in a place without her physical human body being there. But then you'd have to reevaluate your theory to fit what's presented instead of just shouting "MONEY WILL MAKE ANYONE DO ANYTHING" and "Every single person on the island is in on the murders" So what you're saying is he's being Erika with the Kinzo theory? Though I'd argue trying either room would be ridiculously difficult. The other room has both red and Erika-vision backing it. I still don't get why this theory is there in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son? Especially if that money has already been paid out. Oh ok, I understand where you're coming from now, thank you! So the part about 🎵Krauss and Rudolf sitting in
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:But what if he doesn't have a wife and kid? How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who didn't kill your wife and son?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:But what if he doesn't have a wife and kid? If you put it that way, it makes even more sense for Rudolf to be in on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
EagerSleeper posted:Oh ok, I understand where you're coming from now, thank you! So the part about 🎵Krauss and Rudolf sitting in The thing is that if we simply interpret everything as narrative conceit, then this is a solvable mystery in the same way Endless Night is a solvable mystery. If the rules are nonexistent, then the game is about as useful as Calvinball in having any relevant information. We might as well argue that red isn't true and that nothing we're presented with ever has any basis in anything, because narrative conceit~. At that point, you might as well just throw your hands up at that point, because then there's literally nothing you can trust. Sure, that might make for an interesting story where everything's a metaphor, but you'd drat well better not present it as a mystery if you do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:At that point, you might as well just throw your hands up at that point, because then there's literally nothing you can trust. It's almost as if EP6 is trying to make some kind of a point by taking away the only objectively accurate viewpoint, literally the only thing you can trust
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
tiistai posted:It's almost as if EP6 is trying to make some kind of a point by taking away the only objectively accurate viewpoint, literally the only thing you can trust Then EP 6 consists of Battler saying "Acknowledged", what, four times in red and nothing else. Even what he's responding to isn't trustworthy. I know you've read this before. If that's the level of small bombs logic the author has to stoop to in order to keep puzzling his audience it's not worth following this. So far I've been reading with the eye of love, as this story would say, trusting that the mysteries can be reasonably solved by a reader. If what Eager Sleeper says is correct, and you're implying he is, this might be a story, but it can't be a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
tiistai posted:It's almost as if EP6 is trying to make some kind of a point by taking away the only objectively accurate viewpoint, literally the only thing you can trust "How can we trust anything we see if our eyes aren't real"? Did Jaden Smith become the mouthpiece for this game all of a sudden? alcharagia posted:How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who didn't kill your wife and son? Depends on the job and score, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
This is probably a good time for the thread witches to not try and steer the discussion. EP6 is not over yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
tiistai posted:It's almost as if EP6 is trying to make some kind of a point by taking away the only objectively accurate viewpoint, literally the only thing you can trust Ok fine. Everyone's a seagull, and this is all a metaphor for a bizarre seagull mating ritual. Battler's goal is to prove that Beatrice has a seagull fetish. Every time a place is referred to, it's just seagull things. Edit: I should also note that I in no way trust the constant assertions that the rules no longer apply simply because explicit Detective Authority is removed. Cyouni fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:This is probably a good time for the thread witches to not try and steer the discussion. EP6 is not over yet. Sorry, I figured it was cool since it wasn't really a new topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:How much money would it take for you to play along with someone who just murdered your wife and son? Especially if that money has already been paid out. In the last episode everyone played along just fine. And so did the other accomplices in 1-2. (To refresh your memory, Eva and Hideyoshi, Rosa, all of the servants in all of the episodes.) I don't know why you think the money's "already been paid out." Sayo sent those packages, but way before the events of the massacre, so how could she know who would cooperate? I think that money is separate from any bribe or blackmail she could have used to gain accomplices. tiistai posted:It's almost as if EP6 is trying to make some kind of a point by taking away the only objectively accurate viewpoint, literally the only thing you can trust Yeah, I like the feeling of picking through the wreckage of a deconstructed narrative to find the truth of a situation. It reminds me of reading and discussing Nabokov's Pale Fire for the first time. witchcore ricepunk fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
witchcore ricepunk posted:In the last episode everyone played along just fine. quote:And so did the other accomplices in 1-2. (To refresh your memory, Eva and Hideyoshi, Rosa, all of the servants in all of the episodes.) I don't know why you think the money's "already been paid out." Sayo sent those packages, but way before the events of the massacre, so how could she know who would cooperate? I think that money is separate from any bribe or blackmail she could have used to gain accomplices. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not. loving. PRESENTED. So far we have been shown evidence for two types of bribes: - A package is mailed on October 3rd to 1234 Fake St. with a return address of the conspirators next of kin. That is sent to next of kin implies Kumasawa and Nanjo expecting they may not survive the ordeal. I don't believe Rudolf's/Kyrie's financial troubles were so dire that they'd accept a deal that is likely to kill their spouse and son and leave their 6 year old daughter rich but orphaned. - A Character is shown a pile of gold bars before any suspicious action takes place, and is later shown in possession of one of those bars. In this way we can pinpoint the time and place where Rosa accepted a bribe. This also works for Ep 5 because Big Pile of Gold -> Big Family Meeting. Arguing for other bribes without similar evidence is like saying that because we see George propose to Shannon, we can also conclude that Gohda and Rosa are similarly engaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Wouldn't all of the parents' repeatedly stated need for tons of money ASAP be the clue? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Only if you're contending that they were all accomplices in every single game, because they all talked about needing that money in every single game. So if your position is that this is a (Famous Agatha Christie Novel)Murder on the Orient Express situation, then alright. I would personally be really disappointed if that's where this ends up, but I'm open to the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
witchcore ricepunk posted:Wouldn't all of the parents' repeatedly stated need for tons of money ASAP be the clue? That would be a suggestion that they're theoretically bribable, but that's also on the same level as saying "Maria has issues with her mother, so she organized the murder plot to kill Rosa, with everyone else being collateral". Proof of motive is not proof of action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:The thing is that if we simply interpret everything as narrative conceit, then this is a solvable mystery in the same way Endless Night is a solvable mystery. If the rules are nonexistent, then the game is about as useful as Calvinball in having any relevant information. We might as well argue that red isn't true and that nothing we're presented with ever has any basis in anything, because narrative conceit~. At that point, you might as well just throw your hands up at that point, because then there's literally nothing you can trust. This kinda seems a lot like Erika mulling over the phrase 'without love, it can not be seen,' to me. The thing about narrative conceits is that there IS an internal logic to the extended metaphor, so this mystery is something that can be solved if one takes care to notice the things that remain consistent between all the different (if not embellished) retellings of the same series of events that led up to the murders on an island. An unreliable narrator shouldn't mean that we should give up, but instead start analyzing an objective truth for ourselves. But yeah, not going to lie. It's shaping up to just be seagulls all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:That would be a suggestion that they're theoretically bribable, but that's also on the same level as saying "Maria has issues with her mother, so she organized the murder plot to kill Rosa, with everyone else being collateral". Proof of motive is not proof of action. At best we only have access to the blue truth: "proof" is well beyond our power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Only if you're contending that they were all accomplices in every single game, because they all talked about needing that money in every single game. So if your position is that this is a (Famous Agatha Christie Novel)Murder on the Orient Express situation, then alright. I would personally be really disappointed if that's where this ends up, but I'm open to the possibility. I think that's the solution to this case in this episode. I do not believe that the accomplices (who and why) are a constant from scenario to scenario. I think the culprit (Sayo) was free to choose whomever she wanted to enlist in each of the episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
witchcore ricepunk posted:I think that's the solution to this case in this episode. I do not believe that the accomplices (who and why) are a constant from scenario to scenario. I think the culprit (Sayo) was free to choose whomever she wanted to enlist in each of the episodes. You can't have it both ways. If "Needs money = Is Accomplice" then this must always be true. If needing money is only sometimes evidence of being an accomplice, then it is never sufficient evidence of being an accomplice. You can't just choose to ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your theory for a given game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:You can't have it both ways. If "Needs money = Is Accomplice" then this must always be true. If needing money is only sometimes evidence of being an accomplice, then it is never sufficient evidence of being an accomplice. You can't just choose to ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your theory for a given game. I don't know if you noticed but Knox's 8th doesn't actually forbid clues that aren't important, IE red herrings. It only says that there must be a clue for a plot development, not that every clue must have its own plot development. In a game where the same event plays out in different ways there no reason different clues can't be important in different games and irrelevant in others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
If we needed a clue that Battler's viewpoint was no longer objective in episode 5, then we'd need a clue that so-and-so is no longer an accomplice when they were in the previous game.* In a game as heavy with symbolism as this, you can't go changing the meaning of a symbol without providing some indicator that it has changed. That would be like changing the meaning of 'magic' from game to game with no warning. It makes learning and reasoning impossible. *Please remember that this is all in the context of taking as true wr's assertion that needing lots of money is evidence that someone has been bribed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Or we could start from the assumption that there are no accomplices at the start of the game (or only the servants are accomplices, which we do have evidence for) and take the piles of implications that other people are helping the culprit in specific games as evidence that they have been bribed in that specific game? Its backwards to state that we have to start assuming everyone is an accomplice in every game and fine evidence that they AREN'T an accomplice just to find an accomplice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Why is that backwards? This isn't a trial. Process of elimination is a valid strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Its backwards in the sense that it can selectively ignore evidence if the author planting clues is working in the other direction. We don't really have negative, "not the accomplice in all games" clues. Everyone dies multiple times between the games, including Battler, so we can't figure out whos an accomplice because their alive all the time, Ange didn't dig through her relatives leftovers to find out if other people WEREN'T sent money, for all we know Rosa also got a money letter, but Ange doesn't go investigating for that. The author doesn't consider this important because they don't expect you to try to find the accomplices that way. Or in other words just because its a valid strategy doesn't mean it will actually work if the author putting clues in his story didn't intend you to figure things out that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Lisonfire posted:Or we could start from the assumption that there are no accomplices at the start of the game (or only the servants are accomplices, which we do have evidence for) and take the piles of implications that other people are helping the culprit in specific games as evidence that they have been bribed in that specific game? Reminder that he's arguing against the context of "they all have the possibility of being accomplices because motive so they're accomplices when it's helpful to my argument and not accomplices when it's not". Why is the burden of proof on him to counter the argument that they're in a Schrodinger's state of being bribed? Why is the burden of proof not on the one proposing this? The alternative is accepting the argument of "everyone searched for the gold at one point, so that's a clue to say anyone could have been bribed. Now I'm going to cherry pick bribed people to support my argument". Cyouni fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:58
|
|