People tend to not take a killer at their word for anything. That would go doubly so during the apocalypse. There are reasons for Christa to pull the trigger that don't apply to the Walter situation (namely her and Clem traveling alone and there's no way for her to know if Michelle can be trusted to leave them alone).
Walter's hesitation is a good thing the way I see it. It means his decision didn't come easily and wasn't a jerk reaction. If you say "he's just like everyone else" shouldn't he have just walked away like he never saw anything (let alone tossing away the knife in the first place)? He doesn't, because that's not the sort of person he is. Even with the anger, he obviously contemplates the gravity of what he's about to do. All that stuff about Steinbeck wasn't just him blowing hot air. He considers himself a 'thinking' animal.
If the game wanted to justify Luke's paranoia they would've had Walter finding out dependant on the player's decision. But no, he finds out regardless and the only way to save Nick is by leveling with him and encouraging Nick to do the same. It's a test about doing what's right in the face of adversity, IMO.
But anyway, we're probably never going to agree on this point. Agree to disagree I guess. It's been fun.
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 i… moren 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 ap… [view original content]
People tend to not take a killer at their word for anything. That would go doubly so during the apocalypse. There are reasons for Christa to… more pull the trigger that don't apply to the Walter situation (namely her and Clem traveling alone and there's no way for her to know if Michelle can be trusted to leave them alone).
Walter's hesitation is a good thing the way I see it. It means his decision didn't come easily and wasn't a jerk reaction. If you say "he's just like everyone else" shouldn't he have just walked away like he never saw anything (let alone tossing away the knife in the first place)? He doesn't, because that's not the sort of person he is. Even with the anger, he obviously contemplates the gravity of what he's about to do. All that stuff about Steinbeck wasn't just him blowing hot air. He considers himself a 'thinking' animal.
If the game wanted to justify Luke's paranoia they would've had Walter finding out dependant on the … [view original content]
True, we don't have proof that emotional instability was behind Nick's actions (though I don't know what could constitute proof of someone's internal motivations), but the game seems to heavily suggest that this is the case. The people closest to Nick and who know him best, Luke and Pete, both make a note of Nick's lack of emotional control as an explanation for why he does the things he des. Shortly after the incident on the bridge, we also get an option to compare Nick to Lilly's, whose actions were clearly influenced by her emotional instability. Finally, Nick's own explanation about last "accident" that he had with a gun was that he was still emotionally traumatized from when his mother was bitten. Being stuck in the past unable to move on seems to be Nick's character-defining trait, evidence by his own admission that he wishes he could just "keep moving" like Luke. Instead of figuring out how to use his experiences to propel him forward in a better direction, he dwells on the past and lets it dictate his actions. Maybe you have a different interpretation of his character. If so, I'd be interested to hear it.
I don't know if the game necessarily sets up Luke's tendency to distance himself from trouble as necessarily a flaw in his decision-making, but I do agree with your general assessment of his character. However, I find it difficult to point to the situation on the bridge as an instance of bad decision-making on Luke's part because like I said before, there was no good way to handle that situation. It might be a bad idea to leave a liability to his own devices, but it's also a bad idea to bring a liability along on a risky mission with you. Either way, there's a risk of that person doing something impulsive and messing things up. Moreover, if Nick had stuck to Luke's plan and just stayed with the group rather than trying to "cover" Luke and Clem, things would have been fine. So it wasn't even Luke's plan that ended up being the problem. It was Nick's deviation from that plan that was the issue and that can't be blamed on Luke whatsoever.
We've no proof that "emotional instability" had anything to do with his actions. That's Luke's assumption which frankly after enduring for s… moreo 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 … [view original content]
Pete never really gave me that impression. I mean he mentions Nick having a temper but that's not the same thing as emotionally unstable. It seemed what he was trying to get across with his deer story, was that Nick is sensitive despite how outwardly bad he might behave. As for Luke, it's funny but he's obviously saddened if Clem refers to Nick as a crazy person and even tries to explain it away as just a phase he's going through. And yet he himself uses language that clearly favors the interpretation that Nick is unstable ('losing it'). I don't think he knows for certain one way or the other.
As to your interpretation of Nick, I have to say that makes a great deal of sense and it goes hand in hand with what I think is a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies. He screws up->gets down on himself->endeavors to do better with overcompensating behavior->screws up again->repeat cycle.
Regarding the bridge, it was a tough call and I'll say the responsibility is largely with Nick. However, I was under the impression that it was the issue with the Walkers that initially prompted Nick and the others to come over. I mean they had to be on the lookout to see when they made it across and at one point both Luke and Clem look to be in danger of falling off. So I don't think that should be held against him. Now pointing his gun just because the other guy was armed was unwise and where things went horribly wrong. But had Nick been with them Luke could've neutralized him a lot easier, either with a verbal warning or by putting his arm out across him. If he couldn't manage even that then I'd have to question why they let Nick carry a gun at all.
Also not sure we should put too much stock into comparisons with season 1 characters. I mean Nick can be compared to both Lilly and Ben and those two are nothing alike. It feels like those options are there as speculation fodder not something we're meant to take as fact.
True, we don't have proof that emotional instability was behind Nick's actions (though I don't know what could constitute proof of someone's… more internal motivations), but the game seems to heavily suggest that this is the case. The people closest to Nick and who know him best, Luke and Pete, both make a note of Nick's lack of emotional control as an explanation for why he does the things he des. Shortly after the incident on the bridge, we also get an option to compare Nick to Lilly's, whose actions were clearly influenced by her emotional instability. Finally, Nick's own explanation about last "accident" that he had with a gun was that he was still emotionally traumatized from when his mother was bitten. Being stuck in the past unable to move on seems to be Nick's character-defining trait, evidence by his own admission that he wishes he could just "keep moving" like Luke. Instead of figuring out how to use his experiences to propel him forward … [view original content]
Nick is nowhere near as bad as Ben was. Unlike Ben, Nick is NOT a coward and has proven that he can actually hold his own WITHOUT fucking up, like he did during the battle at the lodge. He kept his cool.
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.
Oh I agree Nick is defiantly not a coward and is not as bad as Ben I just wonder in the coming episodes if some of Ben's actions with be mirrored by Nick in some sort of way.
Nick is nowhere near as bad as Ben was. Unlike Ben, Nick is NOT a coward and has proven that he can actually hold his own WITHOUT fucking up, like he did during the battle at the lodge. He kept his cool.
Oh I agree Nick is defiantly not a coward and is not as bad as Ben I just wonder in the coming episodes if some of Ben's actions with be mirrored by Nick in some sort of way.
Comments
People tend to not take a killer at their word for anything. That would go doubly so during the apocalypse. There are reasons for Christa to pull the trigger that don't apply to the Walter situation (namely her and Clem traveling alone and there's no way for her to know if Michelle can be trusted to leave them alone).
Walter's hesitation is a good thing the way I see it. It means his decision didn't come easily and wasn't a jerk reaction. If you say "he's just like everyone else" shouldn't he have just walked away like he never saw anything (let alone tossing away the knife in the first place)? He doesn't, because that's not the sort of person he is. Even with the anger, he obviously contemplates the gravity of what he's about to do. All that stuff about Steinbeck wasn't just him blowing hot air. He considers himself a 'thinking' animal.
If the game wanted to justify Luke's paranoia they would've had Walter finding out dependant on the player's decision. But no, he finds out regardless and the only way to save Nick is by leveling with him and encouraging Nick to do the same. It's a test about doing what's right in the face of adversity, IMO.
But anyway, we're probably never going to agree on this point. Agree to disagree I guess. It's been fun.
FYI, Walt leaves Nick to die when you say that.
Anyway, good debate.
True, we don't have proof that emotional instability was behind Nick's actions (though I don't know what could constitute proof of someone's internal motivations), but the game seems to heavily suggest that this is the case. The people closest to Nick and who know him best, Luke and Pete, both make a note of Nick's lack of emotional control as an explanation for why he does the things he des. Shortly after the incident on the bridge, we also get an option to compare Nick to Lilly's, whose actions were clearly influenced by her emotional instability. Finally, Nick's own explanation about last "accident" that he had with a gun was that he was still emotionally traumatized from when his mother was bitten. Being stuck in the past unable to move on seems to be Nick's character-defining trait, evidence by his own admission that he wishes he could just "keep moving" like Luke. Instead of figuring out how to use his experiences to propel him forward in a better direction, he dwells on the past and lets it dictate his actions. Maybe you have a different interpretation of his character. If so, I'd be interested to hear it.
I don't know if the game necessarily sets up Luke's tendency to distance himself from trouble as necessarily a flaw in his decision-making, but I do agree with your general assessment of his character. However, I find it difficult to point to the situation on the bridge as an instance of bad decision-making on Luke's part because like I said before, there was no good way to handle that situation. It might be a bad idea to leave a liability to his own devices, but it's also a bad idea to bring a liability along on a risky mission with you. Either way, there's a risk of that person doing something impulsive and messing things up. Moreover, if Nick had stuck to Luke's plan and just stayed with the group rather than trying to "cover" Luke and Clem, things would have been fine. So it wasn't even Luke's plan that ended up being the problem. It was Nick's deviation from that plan that was the issue and that can't be blamed on Luke whatsoever.
Pete never really gave me that impression. I mean he mentions Nick having a temper but that's not the same thing as emotionally unstable. It seemed what he was trying to get across with his deer story, was that Nick is sensitive despite how outwardly bad he might behave. As for Luke, it's funny but he's obviously saddened if Clem refers to Nick as a crazy person and even tries to explain it away as just a phase he's going through. And yet he himself uses language that clearly favors the interpretation that Nick is unstable ('losing it'). I don't think he knows for certain one way or the other.
As to your interpretation of Nick, I have to say that makes a great deal of sense and it goes hand in hand with what I think is a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies. He screws up->gets down on himself->endeavors to do better with overcompensating behavior->screws up again->repeat cycle.
Regarding the bridge, it was a tough call and I'll say the responsibility is largely with Nick. However, I was under the impression that it was the issue with the Walkers that initially prompted Nick and the others to come over. I mean they had to be on the lookout to see when they made it across and at one point both Luke and Clem look to be in danger of falling off. So I don't think that should be held against him. Now pointing his gun just because the other guy was armed was unwise and where things went horribly wrong. But had Nick been with them Luke could've neutralized him a lot easier, either with a verbal warning or by putting his arm out across him. If he couldn't manage even that then I'd have to question why they let Nick carry a gun at all.
Also not sure we should put too much stock into comparisons with season 1 characters. I mean Nick can be compared to both Lilly and Ben and those two are nothing alike. It feels like those options are there as speculation fodder not something we're meant to take as fact.
Nick is nowhere near as bad as Ben was. Unlike Ben, Nick is NOT a coward and has proven that he can actually hold his own WITHOUT fucking up, like he did during the battle at the lodge. He kept his cool.
Oh I agree Nick is defiantly not a coward and is not as bad as Ben I just wonder in the coming episodes if some of Ben's actions with be mirrored by Nick in some sort of way.
Sorry, I meant more of a one time fuck-up (Ben with the bandits, Nick with Mathew) but they sure as hell got there shit back together.