If I can remember luke didn't go back because he was asking clementine to see if nick did anything stupid (like get drunk) and then asking her to make sure she watches over nick
And of course he left nick behind at the bridge the guy was in a depressed and he was not beggin he was giving nick his space
Would you have an extremely depressed trigger happy person cover you (and as luke said it's best to not risk the entire group at once)
Remember when Nick started lagging behind because he was depressed? What did Luke do? Kept walking and ignoring him. He doesn't sit down and… more talk to Nick and comfort him. Nick wants to feel apart of Luke and Luke just pushes him away. Like when Nick wanted to go with Luke on bridge, Nick begged Luke, but Luke said no then the second time Luke ignored him and walked away. Nick felt horrible and useless. Luke's not helping Nick's depression!
Okay. I think Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete." Remember when Luke said "don't be like that man" meaning that he subconsciously thought of him as a grown man then now Uncle Pete is dead and Luke saw how that effected Nick. Now suddenly Luke is saying "I'm worried about that kid." Especially when Pete said "I love that stupid kid." Another example that they're hinting that Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete" is when Luke says the same thing that Pete says at the ambulance about looking out for Nick to Clem. Luke has also been on Nick's case lately just like how Uncle Pete was always on Nick's case. Luke thinks that since Nick is so distraught about losing Uncle Pete that he should take that role on with Nick to help Nick. That whole knife situation is something that Pete would've probably did since Luke knows a lot about Pete. Luke is trying to protect Nick, but he's going at it the wrong way. Nick just needs to tell him this.
I know that you may only feel bad for Nick, but I actually feel bad for both of them. Luke's trying to be something that he's not which is Uncle Pete. Nick is the victim of Luke trying too hard to protect him. Nick needs his friend Luke not another "Uncle Pete." Luke just needs to realize this that's all. Don't forget, Pete was hard on Luke too.
It's a subconscious way of expressing that you view someone as less mature than you. It's one thing to say it light-heartedly but another th… moreing when you're talking about someone clearly suffering from depression. Luke may not even realize it but he kind of subconsciously views Nick as less mature than him.
What did Clem do? NOTHING... Oh wait... I forgot that only Luke is responsible for not being right next to Nick 24/7 (sarcasm). It's probably best to leave him to his thoughts. Besides, Luke even hugs Nick (at the brewery shed) and supports him, so argument invalid.
Luke knew that Nick would do something stupid... and he DID... He shot a stranger. He doesn't trust Nick after Pete's death because people who lose family members tend to go a little... coo coo... I'm sure Luke did a bit when he lost his folks.
I'm also sure that killing walkers is a GREAT way to deal with stress, right? (sarcasm)
Remember when Nick started lagging behind because he was depressed? What did Luke do? Kept walking and ignoring him. He doesn't sit down and… more talk to Nick and comfort him. Nick wants to feel apart of Luke and Luke just pushes him away. Like when Nick wanted to go with Luke on bridge, Nick begged Luke, but Luke said no then the second time Luke ignored him and walked away. Nick felt horrible and useless. Luke's not helping Nick's depression!
Not necessarily. Feeling bad doesn't guarantee he'll come away from the incident with the right message. As it is, every time he makes a mistake it just feeds into his self esteem issues.
What bothers me about the bridge incident is most people treat it as a mistake only he could've made. When it's made abundantly clear it was a mistake based on misreading the situation because of distance (and arriving late). Alvin himself said it looked like Matthew had his gun on them (hence Nick's claim that Alvin would've taken the shot).
You could, but then you would have to argue that Luke has been covering for Nick to such an extent that it doesn't allow for him to see when… more he's made a mistake and I just don't think that's true.
Based on Nick's conversation with Clementine in the shed, he knows full well that he's fucked up numerous times by now without Luke having to remind him of it. The only mistake that Luke really "covered" for him on is the thing with Matthew, which Nick had already expressed regret about before learning about Matthew's identity. And that wasn't even the first time that Nick has fired a gun at someone because he was overeager to protect his friends. The guy just doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.
Poor Nick and Luke. Luke's trying to be something he's not which is Uncle Pete. Nick is the victim of Luke trying to hard to protect him. Nick needs his friend not another "Uncle Pete."
Luke is Nick's best friend and only thing he has left not Clementine. Luke needs to know that Nick's last anchor is him not Pete! Luke is just throwing away Nick's feeling and shrugging off Nick wanting to die when Clementine told him. He just brushed off Nick's suicide threat. Yeah what a great friend. (sarcasm)
What did Clem do? NOTHING... Oh wait... I forgot that only Luke is responsible for not being right next to Nick 24/7 (sarcasm). It's proba… morebly best to leave him to his thoughts. Besides, Luke even hugs Nick (at the brewery shed) and supports him, so argument invalid.
Luke knew that Nick would do something stupid... and he DID... He shot a stranger. He doesn't trust Nick after Pete's death because people who lose family members tend to go a little... coo coo... I'm sure Luke did a bit when he lost his folks.
I'm also sure that killing walkers is a GREAT way to deal with stress, right? (sarcasm)
Well in the episode 3 teaser there was a green climbing axe. Perhaps it will be the hatchets replacement? Whoa, just noticed something Ben indirectly killed Duck and Katja and told Kenny at a bad time and Nick killed Matthew and told Walter at a bad time (the zombies/depression). Nick and Ben are both known as screw ups and are seen as adults and children. Hmmm I wonder if there are more similarities.
What did Clem do? NOTHING... Oh wait... I forgot that only Luke is responsible for not being right next to Nick 24/7 (sarcasm). It's proba… morebly best to leave him to his thoughts. Besides, Luke even hugs Nick (at the brewery shed) and supports him, so argument invalid.
Luke knew that Nick would do something stupid... and he DID... He shot a stranger. He doesn't trust Nick after Pete's death because people who lose family members tend to go a little... coo coo... I'm sure Luke did a bit when he lost his folks.
I'm also sure that killing walkers is a GREAT way to deal with stress, right? (sarcasm)
Well now I'm confused. If it's as you say and anyone could have made the mistake that Nick made on the bridge, then what message should Nick have come away from the incident with? Or are you just speaking generally? Because generally speaking, I haven't seen Luke cover for any more of Nick's mistakes. He was only covering for Nick this time because he was afraid that Walter would try to seek vengeance on Nick. Walter ended up being a better man than that, but Luke couldn't have known this, at least not to the extent he was willing to risk his friend's life.
We don't know how other people would have reacted to the situation if they were in Nick's shoes because Nick was the only one who jumped in. Maybe Alvin would have taken the shot. Maybe he would have just approached cautiously while pointing a gun at Matthew. We don't know. What we do know is that Nick has apparently had a history of discharging his firearm when he shouldn't. He seems to acknowledge this to some extent and yet continues to carry around and fire off his gun willy-nilly. That's negligence on his part. But the only solution, it seems, is to keep him from carrying around a gun altogether, but then we're back to patronizing him. There's just no good way to deal with someone like Nick.
Not necessarily. Feeling bad doesn't guarantee he'll come away from the incident with the right message. As it is, every time he makes a mis… moretake it just feeds into his self esteem issues.
What bothers me about the bridge incident is most people treat it as a mistake only he could've made. When it's made abundantly clear it was a mistake based on misreading the situation because of distance (and arriving late). Alvin himself said it looked like Matthew had his gun on them (hence Nick's claim that Alvin would've taken the shot).
Okay. I think Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete." Remember when Luke said "don't be like that man" meaning that he subconsciously thou… moreght of him as a grown man then now Uncle Pete is dead and Luke saw how that effected Nick. Now suddenly Luke is saying "I'm worried about that kid." Especially when Pete said "I love that stupid kid." Another example that they're hinting that Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete" is when Luke says the same thing that Pete says at the ambulance about looking out for Nick to Clem. Luke has also been on Nick's case lately just like how Uncle Pete was always on Nick's case. Luke thinks that since Nick is so distraught about losing Uncle Pete that he should take that role on with Nick to help Nick. That whole knife situation is something that Pete would've probably did since Luke knows a lot about Pete. Luke is trying to protect Nick, but he's going at it the wrong way. Nick just needs to tell him this.
… [view original content]
Luke even said it wasn't the first time he has made suicide threats... plus he was drunk, you don't take drunks seriously. Besides, would that make him SAFER with the group if he wanted to die?
Luke is Nick's best friend and only thing he has left not Clementine. Luke needs to know that Nick's last anchor is him not Pete! Luke is ju… morest throwing away Nick's feeling and shrugging off Nick wanting to die when Clementine told him. He just brushed off Nick's suicide threat. Yeah what a great friend. (sarcasm)
Luke falling off the bridge and killing walkers are very different things. I never said, nor do I think that Luke falling off the bridge was stress relieving.
I'm just saying walkers isn't the only things you have to worry about. Besides, it's not killing walkers that is stress inducing, it's the potential of being overrun by walkers.
Luke falling off the bridge and killing walkers are very different things. I never said, nor do I think that Luke falling off the bridge was stress relieving.
I was writing a reply but accidentally closed the page when trying to switch tabs, so now you'll get a less concerned reply. Obviously getting overrun by walkers would suck, but killing a few would do wonders for ones mood I think. Like this from the show:
I'm just saying walkers isn't the only things you have to worry about. Besides, it's not killing walkers that is stress inducing, it's the potential of being overrun by walkers.
At the same time, in about 50% of games Nick had saved Clem's life only a few hours before. You'd think that the least she could do is go back and comfort him. If you say Luke is bad for not going back to be with Nick, then Clem is just as bad, if not worse by your logic.
EDIT: In the other 50% Clem promises Pete that she'd watch out for Nick (or not, but then she's a scumbag anyway in that case) and still does nothing. If Luke gets crap for not helping Nick, Clem gets just as much.
Luke is Nick's best friend and only thing he has left not Clementine. Luke needs to know that Nick's last anchor is him not Pete! Luke is ju… morest throwing away Nick's feeling and shrugging off Nick wanting to die when Clementine told him. He just brushed off Nick's suicide threat. Yeah what a great friend. (sarcasm)
Just so you know I only brought up why covering for Nick could be harmful because of this comment by you
He's trying to keep him from doing stupid shit and covering for his mistakes and that kind of dynamic endks up being kind of paternal after a little while.
I actually agree that we haven't seen much of this from Luke yet. It's only if they adopt the dynamic you mention it'll probably cause more harm than good, IMO.
However, what happened on the bridge is not the same as accidentally discharging a gun so I don't think that's a fair assessment to make. Nick saw, judged the situation, and fired. Turns out his judgement was wrong and that's hardly exclusive to him as the group's episode one actions demonstrate. I'm of the opinion that Luke made the wrong call on this one; he should've brought Nick with them if he really wanted to keep him under control (and at least Nick would've gotten the whole picture).
Well now I'm confused. If it's as you say and anyone could have made the mistake that Nick made on the bridge, then what message should Nick… more have come away from the incident with? Or are you just speaking generally? Because generally speaking, I haven't seen Luke cover for any more of Nick's mistakes. He was only covering for Nick this time because he was afraid that Walter would try to seek vengeance on Nick. Walter ended up being a better man than that, but Luke couldn't have known this, at least not to the extent he was willing to risk his friend's life.
We don't know how other people would have reacted to the situation if they were in Nick's shoes because Nick was the only one who jumped in. Maybe Alvin would have taken the shot. Maybe he would have just approached cautiously while pointing a gun at Matthew. We don't know. What we do know is that Nick has apparently had a history of discharging his firearm when he shouldn't. He seems t… [view original content]
If Luke keeps covering for Nick's mistakes, yes, I think that would be bad, but trying to keep him from doing stupid things by putting some distance between him and sensitive or volatile situations seems a reasonable enough strategy. Granted, it hasn't worked out all that well in practice, but it's how I would personally try to deal with someone like Nick.
The incident that Pete recalled was an accidental discharge but I was under the impression that the shot he fired at Clem was voluntary in every case except the one where Clem keeps silent. The face he made immediately after shooting so was one of anger, not shock. But even if we take the incident on the bridge by itself, Nick admits to Clem that "Maybe I am losing it. I don't know anymore." yet still holds onto his gun and refuses to give it up at the ski lodge. Nick's main problem is that he refuses to accept when his emotional instability is becoming a problem. Instead of taking a moment to reassess where he's at, he soldiers forth to try to prove how "okay" he is and ends up fucking things up more.
Finally, the Luke thing may be a bit of hindsight bias. Sure, it's possible that bringing Nick along would have helped reign him in a little more, but it's also possible that things could have turned out even worse. All I can say is that, at the time. I probably wouldn't have trusted Nick to have my back crossing the bridge either.
Just so you know I only brought up why covering for Nick could be harmful because of this comment by you
He's trying to keep him from … moredoing stupid shit and covering for his mistakes and that kind of dynamic endks up being kind of paternal after a little while.
I actually agree that we haven't seen much of this from Luke yet. It's only if they adopt the dynamic you mention it'll probably cause more harm than good, IMO.
However, what happened on the bridge is not the same as accidentally discharging a gun so I don't think that's a fair assessment to make. Nick saw, judged the situation, and fired. Turns out his judgement was wrong and that's hardly exclusive to him as the group's episode one actions demonstrate. I'm of the opinion that Luke made the wrong call on this one; he should've brought Nick with them if he really wanted to keep him under control (and at least Nick would've gotten the whole picture).
I don't like Luke. Nick was really brave to tell Walter the truth. Luke was like "it's a fu**** suicide" and it wasn't". Lee never lied (at least in my playthrough) and that's why I don't want Clem to lie or to have friends convincing her to do so.
I don't like Luke. Nick was really brave to tell Walter the truth. Luke was like "it's a fu**** suicide" and it wasn't". Lee never lied (at least in my playthrough) and that's why I don't want Clem to lie or to have friends convincing her to do so.
Well in the episode 3 teaser there was a green climbing axe. Perhaps it will be the hatchets replacement? Whoa, just noticed something Ben i… morendirectly killed Duck and Katja and told Kenny at a bad time and Nick killed Matthew and told Walter at a bad time (the zombies/depression). Nick and Ben are both known as screw ups and are seen as adults and children. Hmmm I wonder if there are more similarities.
I don't like Luke. Nick was really brave to tell Walter the truth. Luke was like "it's a fu**** suicide" and it wasn't". Lee never lied (at least in my playthrough) and that's why I don't want Clem to lie or to have friends convincing her to do so.
We've no proof that "emotional instability" had anything to do with his actions. That's Luke's assumption which frankly after enduring for so long I'm not surprised that Nick was beginning to consider it himself. No one else in the group wanted to relieve their weapons either until Clem or Luke take the lead in breaking the stalemate.
Hindsight bias wasn't needed. The game already set up Luke's decision making abilities to be called into question. No, that's just an extension of a problem I perceived regarding Nick and Luke's relationship. When Luke asked Clem to watch him I already felt like he was deliberately trying to put some distance between himself and the difficult problem that is Nick (much like his initial rejection of Clem when he thought she was bit). The bridge incident was just another example of that. Luke falters when it comes to difficult/complicated choices. If the whole point of his plan was to keep the whole group safe by not risking everyone then leaving the person he considered a liability to his own devices was not a good move, IMO.
If Luke keeps covering for Nick's mistakes, yes, I think that would be bad, but trying to keep him from doing stupid things by putting some … moredistance between him and sensitive or volatile situations seems a reasonable enough strategy. Granted, it hasn't worked out all that well in practice, but it's how I would personally try to deal with someone like Nick.
The incident that Pete recalled was an accidental discharge but I was under the impression that the shot he fired at Clem was voluntary in every case except the one where Clem keeps silent. The face he made immediately after shooting so was one of anger, not shock. But even if we take the incident on the bridge by itself, Nick admits to Clem that "Maybe I am losing it. I don't know anymore." yet still holds onto his gun and refuses to give it up at the ski lodge. Nick's main problem is that he refuses to accept when his emotional instability is becoming a problem. Instead of taking a mom… [view original content]
"Nearly lost it" is still not losing it. And you're ignoring that he did have some form of logic in his decision regarding Nick that went beyond "rargh, you killed my lover!".
None of that would have happened if Clem hadn't talked to him. Walter would have lost it if Clem didn't calm him down a bit. If you remain silent when he asks you if Nick is a good man, Walter lets Nick die. The same would have happened if Clem wasn't there at all.
"Nearly lost it" is still not losing it. And you're ignoring that he did have some form of logic in his decision regarding Nick that went beyond "rargh, you killed my lover!".
That's assuming that he wouldn't ask questions of anyone else. He clearly wanted answers as to why it happened, so I don't think that would be the case. I just have a problem with people automatically equating anger/grief with instant psychosis. Would people have felt more at ease with his mental state if he didn't bat an eyelash at the reveal?
None of that would have happened if Clem hadn't talked to him. Walter would have lost it if Clem didn't calm him down a bit. If you remain… more silent when he asks you if Nick is a good man, Walter lets Nick die. The same would have happened if Clem wasn't there at all.
That is because anger and grief can CAUSE psychosis; it always has. Kenny, Lilly, Nick, Christa (more mild), Jolene... all those people who have recently lost someone has had a violent (but temporary) reaction, especially toward those involved.
That's assuming that he wouldn't ask questions of anyone else. He clearly wanted answers as to why it happened, so I don't think that would … morebe the case. I just have a problem with people automatically equating anger/grief with instant psychosis. Would people have felt more at ease with his mental state if he didn't bat an eyelash at the reveal?
You can't just randomly lump a few people who've grieved with a couple who've had psychotic breaks and think that proves your point. You're completely ignoring the individual circumstances. Lilly's didn't even happen immediately and there's much that happened with Jolene off screen that it's a disservice to try and group the others in with her. I don't even count Christa's actions as psychosis despite it obviously being retaliatory. Letting Michelle go after the fact would've been extremely questionable.
Grief/anger can possibly lead to psychosis, that doesn't justify treating them as one and the same.
That is because anger and grief can CAUSE psychosis; it always has. Kenny, Lilly, Nick, Christa (more mild), Jolene... all those people who have recently lost someone has had a violent (but temporary) reaction, especially toward those involved.
Luke he is a nice friend, he is not mean with Nick he just wants nick to put his S**t together, (you are in a ZA and suddenly you stop taking care of yourself, not paying attention to your surrounding etc, that means you die) cos he is obviously down, yeah he got mad with him cos he killed mattew but thats a totally reasonable thing to feel, and Nick didn't screw tried to save clem and Luke and he apologized
That Michelle situation is a perfect example: Michelle said it was an accident as well, yet that didn't stop Christa from putting a bullet in her. Same here: Nick didn't mean to do it, but does that really change the fact that he pulled the trigger (knowingly)? Does that stop Walter from killing him? No, of course not. Accident or not, Nick was still the cause of his death. Also note that either way (if you tell Walt that Nick is a good man or not) Walter hesitates when he has the opportunity to save Nick. Had the knife still been in the bag and we got rid of it, Walter wouldn't have hesitated to save another persons life.
And it completely justifies treating them as such. You think it's smart to waltz on over to Walt thinking, "I'm going to do the right thing and tell Walter that we killed his friend! I'll just cross my fingers and hope he doesn't shoot me in the face!" Grief and anger are both completely unpredictable, and to approach it like that is reckless and risky, to much so for my liking.
Therefore, regardless of the outcome, Luke was completely right to keep the truth away from Walt in fear of his friends life and the safety of the group. He was thinking smart, not right or wrong.
You can't just randomly lump a few people who've grieved with a couple who've had psychotic breaks and think that proves your point. You're … morecompletely ignoring the individual circumstances. Lilly's didn't even happen immediately and there's much that happened with Jolene off screen that it's a disservice to try and group the others in with her. I don't even count Christa's actions as psychosis despite it obviously being retaliatory. Letting Michelle go after the fact would've been extremely questionable.
Grief/anger can possibly lead to psychosis, that doesn't justify treating them as one and the same.
Comments
If I can remember luke didn't go back because he was asking clementine to see if nick did anything stupid (like get drunk) and then asking her to make sure she watches over nick
And of course he left nick behind at the bridge the guy was in a depressed and he was not beggin he was giving nick his space
Would you have an extremely depressed trigger happy person cover you (and as luke said it's best to not risk the entire group at once)
Okay. I think Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete." Remember when Luke said "don't be like that man" meaning that he subconsciously thought of him as a grown man then now Uncle Pete is dead and Luke saw how that effected Nick. Now suddenly Luke is saying "I'm worried about that kid." Especially when Pete said "I love that stupid kid." Another example that they're hinting that Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete" is when Luke says the same thing that Pete says at the ambulance about looking out for Nick to Clem. Luke has also been on Nick's case lately just like how Uncle Pete was always on Nick's case. Luke thinks that since Nick is so distraught about losing Uncle Pete that he should take that role on with Nick to help Nick. That whole knife situation is something that Pete would've probably did since Luke knows a lot about Pete. Luke is trying to protect Nick, but he's going at it the wrong way. Nick just needs to tell him this.
I know that you may only feel bad for Nick, but I actually feel bad for both of them. Luke's trying to be something that he's not which is Uncle Pete. Nick is the victim of Luke trying too hard to protect him. Nick needs his friend Luke not another "Uncle Pete." Luke just needs to realize this that's all. Don't forget, Pete was hard on Luke too.
What did Clem do? NOTHING... Oh wait... I forgot that only Luke is responsible for not being right next to Nick 24/7 (sarcasm). It's probably best to leave him to his thoughts. Besides, Luke even hugs Nick (at the brewery shed) and supports him, so argument invalid.
Luke knew that Nick would do something stupid... and he DID... He shot a stranger. He doesn't trust Nick after Pete's death because people who lose family members tend to go a little... coo coo... I'm sure Luke did a bit when he lost his folks.
I'm also sure that killing walkers is a GREAT way to deal with stress, right? (sarcasm)
Not necessarily. Feeling bad doesn't guarantee he'll come away from the incident with the right message. As it is, every time he makes a mistake it just feeds into his self esteem issues.
What bothers me about the bridge incident is most people treat it as a mistake only he could've made. When it's made abundantly clear it was a mistake based on misreading the situation because of distance (and arriving late). Alvin himself said it looked like Matthew had his gun on them (hence Nick's claim that Alvin would've taken the shot).
Pretty tragic these guys but so fascinating.
Luke is Nick's best friend and only thing he has left not Clementine. Luke needs to know that Nick's last anchor is him not Pete! Luke is just throwing away Nick's feeling and shrugging off Nick wanting to die when Clementine told him. He just brushed off Nick's suicide threat. Yeah what a great friend. (sarcasm)
Well in the episode 3 teaser there was a green climbing axe. Perhaps it will be the hatchets replacement? Whoa, just noticed something Ben indirectly killed Duck and Katja and told Kenny at a bad time and Nick killed Matthew and told Walter at a bad time (the zombies/depression). Nick and Ben are both known as screw ups and are seen as adults and children. Hmmm I wonder if there are more similarities.
If I was overly stressed I think I'd enjoy killing walkers. I'd probably enjoy that on a good day though. Maybe I don't count.
Well now I'm confused. If it's as you say and anyone could have made the mistake that Nick made on the bridge, then what message should Nick have come away from the incident with? Or are you just speaking generally? Because generally speaking, I haven't seen Luke cover for any more of Nick's mistakes. He was only covering for Nick this time because he was afraid that Walter would try to seek vengeance on Nick. Walter ended up being a better man than that, but Luke couldn't have known this, at least not to the extent he was willing to risk his friend's life.
We don't know how other people would have reacted to the situation if they were in Nick's shoes because Nick was the only one who jumped in. Maybe Alvin would have taken the shot. Maybe he would have just approached cautiously while pointing a gun at Matthew. We don't know. What we do know is that Nick has apparently had a history of discharging his firearm when he shouldn't. He seems to acknowledge this to some extent and yet continues to carry around and fire off his gun willy-nilly. That's negligence on his part. But the only solution, it seems, is to keep him from carrying around a gun altogether, but then we're back to patronizing him. There's just no good way to deal with someone like Nick.
This is a great theory. You need to make this into a thread.
Thank you, I really appreciate it, but why do I need to make this into a thread when it's right here?
So more people can see this theory and tweak it or they can post what they think about it. I really want to see other people's opinions on this.
I don't know. Luke nearly falling off the bridge wasn't exactly stress relieving.
Okay, thank you!
Luke even said it wasn't the first time he has made suicide threats... plus he was drunk, you don't take drunks seriously. Besides, would that make him SAFER with the group if he wanted to die?
Luke falling off the bridge and killing walkers are very different things. I never said, nor do I think that Luke falling off the bridge was stress relieving.
I'm just saying walkers isn't the only things you have to worry about. Besides, it's not killing walkers that is stress inducing, it's the potential of being overrun by walkers.
I was writing a reply but accidentally closed the page when trying to switch tabs, so now you'll get a less concerned reply. Obviously getting overrun by walkers would suck, but killing a few would do wonders for ones mood I think. Like this from the show:
At the same time, in about 50% of games Nick had saved Clem's life only a few hours before. You'd think that the least she could do is go back and comfort him. If you say Luke is bad for not going back to be with Nick, then Clem is just as bad, if not worse by your logic.
EDIT: In the other 50% Clem promises Pete that she'd watch out for Nick (or not, but then she's a scumbag anyway in that case) and still does nothing. If Luke gets crap for not helping Nick, Clem gets just as much.
Just so you know I only brought up why covering for Nick could be harmful because of this comment by you
I actually agree that we haven't seen much of this from Luke yet. It's only if they adopt the dynamic you mention it'll probably cause more harm than good, IMO.
However, what happened on the bridge is not the same as accidentally discharging a gun so I don't think that's a fair assessment to make. Nick saw, judged the situation, and fired. Turns out his judgement was wrong and that's hardly exclusive to him as the group's episode one actions demonstrate. I'm of the opinion that Luke made the wrong call on this one; he should've brought Nick with them if he really wanted to keep him under control (and at least Nick would've gotten the whole picture).
She probably still stalks you but is still angry, haha. C'mon though, you have to admit the conversations were pretty funny.
If Luke keeps covering for Nick's mistakes, yes, I think that would be bad, but trying to keep him from doing stupid things by putting some distance between him and sensitive or volatile situations seems a reasonable enough strategy. Granted, it hasn't worked out all that well in practice, but it's how I would personally try to deal with someone like Nick.
The incident that Pete recalled was an accidental discharge but I was under the impression that the shot he fired at Clem was voluntary in every case except the one where Clem keeps silent. The face he made immediately after shooting so was one of anger, not shock. But even if we take the incident on the bridge by itself, Nick admits to Clem that "Maybe I am losing it. I don't know anymore." yet still holds onto his gun and refuses to give it up at the ski lodge. Nick's main problem is that he refuses to accept when his emotional instability is becoming a problem. Instead of taking a moment to reassess where he's at, he soldiers forth to try to prove how "okay" he is and ends up fucking things up more.
Finally, the Luke thing may be a bit of hindsight bias. Sure, it's possible that bringing Nick along would have helped reign him in a little more, but it's also possible that things could have turned out even worse. All I can say is that, at the time. I probably wouldn't have trusted Nick to have my back crossing the bridge either.
Nah, it was either just trolling or she got over it now. But yeah, it was a little funny
Lol, ah well, it was fun while it lasted huh? Haha jk, or am I?
Well, now that you mentioned it...
I don't like Luke. Nick was really brave to tell Walter the truth. Luke was like "it's a fu**** suicide" and it wasn't". Lee never lied (at least in my playthrough) and that's why I don't want Clem to lie or to have friends convincing her to do so.
That's really more determinant whether it's suicide or not
Well, besides them being fuck-ups, nothing comes to mind.
Actually, Luke was right: Walter nearly lost it, and had Clem not been there, Nick would have surly died.
We've no proof that "emotional instability" had anything to do with his actions. That's Luke's assumption which frankly after enduring for so long I'm not surprised that Nick was beginning to consider it himself. No one else in the group wanted to relieve their weapons either until Clem or Luke take the lead in breaking the stalemate.
Hindsight bias wasn't needed. The game already set up Luke's decision making abilities to be called into question. No, that's just an extension of a problem I perceived regarding Nick and Luke's relationship. When Luke asked Clem to watch him I already felt like he was deliberately trying to put some distance between himself and the difficult problem that is Nick (much like his initial rejection of Clem when he thought she was bit). The bridge incident was just another example of that. Luke falters when it comes to difficult/complicated choices. If the whole point of his plan was to keep the whole group safe by not risking everyone then leaving the person he considered a liability to his own devices was not a good move, IMO.
"Nearly lost it" is still not losing it. And you're ignoring that he did have some form of logic in his decision regarding Nick that went beyond "rargh, you killed my lover!".
.....does he? I got the impression that he hated Luke much more than Nick.
THIS IS IT
THIS IS HER
RUN
None of that would have happened if Clem hadn't talked to him. Walter would have lost it if Clem didn't calm him down a bit. If you remain silent when he asks you if Nick is a good man, Walter lets Nick die. The same would have happened if Clem wasn't there at all.
That's assuming that he wouldn't ask questions of anyone else. He clearly wanted answers as to why it happened, so I don't think that would be the case. I just have a problem with people automatically equating anger/grief with instant psychosis. Would people have felt more at ease with his mental state if he didn't bat an eyelash at the reveal?
That is because anger and grief can CAUSE psychosis; it always has. Kenny, Lilly, Nick, Christa (more mild), Jolene... all those people who have recently lost someone has had a violent (but temporary) reaction, especially toward those involved.
You can't just randomly lump a few people who've grieved with a couple who've had psychotic breaks and think that proves your point. You're completely ignoring the individual circumstances. Lilly's didn't even happen immediately and there's much that happened with Jolene off screen that it's a disservice to try and group the others in with her. I don't even count Christa's actions as psychosis despite it obviously being retaliatory. Letting Michelle go after the fact would've been extremely questionable.
Grief/anger can possibly lead to psychosis, that doesn't justify treating them as one and the same.
Luke he is a nice friend, he is not mean with Nick he just wants nick to put his S**t together, (you are in a ZA and suddenly you stop taking care of yourself, not paying attention to your surrounding etc, that means you die) cos he is obviously down, yeah he got mad with him cos he killed mattew but thats a totally reasonable thing to feel, and Nick didn't screw tried to save clem and Luke and he apologized
That Michelle situation is a perfect example: Michelle said it was an accident as well, yet that didn't stop Christa from putting a bullet in her. Same here: Nick didn't mean to do it, but does that really change the fact that he pulled the trigger (knowingly)? Does that stop Walter from killing him? No, of course not. Accident or not, Nick was still the cause of his death. Also note that either way (if you tell Walt that Nick is a good man or not) Walter hesitates when he has the opportunity to save Nick. Had the knife still been in the bag and we got rid of it, Walter wouldn't have hesitated to save another persons life.
And it completely justifies treating them as such. You think it's smart to waltz on over to Walt thinking, "I'm going to do the right thing and tell Walter that we killed his friend! I'll just cross my fingers and hope he doesn't shoot me in the face!" Grief and anger are both completely unpredictable, and to approach it like that is reckless and risky, to much so for my liking.
Therefore, regardless of the outcome, Luke was completely right to keep the truth away from Walt in fear of his friends life and the safety of the group. He was thinking smart, not right or wrong.