If Luke had let Nick come with them on the bridge...
Matthew would still be alive, giving Walter no reason to let Nick die, and Nick wouldn't be determinant. Dammit, Luke.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Matthew would still be alive, giving Walter no reason to let Nick die, and Nick wouldn't be determinant. Dammit, Luke.
Comments
If Nick had gone with Pete and Clementine to check the bodies on the other side of the river then he would've had Pete's back, meaning Pete wouldn't have been bitten, meaning Nick wouldn't become depressed, meaning Luke wouldn't have a reason to leave Nick behind when he and Clem went on the bridge.
Yeah, in a way Luke is actually responsible for Matthew's death!
He couldn't have known
I have to agree, honestly. I wouldn't go so far as to blame Luke for Nick's death because honestly there are way too many factors there that were out of his control, but yes, I do think that if Nick had gone with them on the bridge, he wouldn't have shot Matthew.
The group treating Nick like he's a ticking time bomb only made a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nick is a grown man and understands what he is an isn't capable of. When he told Luke "I'm fine to go," Luke should have known to trust his friend of twenty years over a little girl he'd known for a week. But when he treats him like a child and goes on to say, "I don't trust Nick to tie his own shoes," well... like I said. self-fulfilling prophecy. It's called the "labeling theory"--when you treat someone a certain way, they'll start to adapt to that role, regardless of whether or not they'd actually inherently been that way to begin with.
Is blame more pete than luke considering how it seems pete raised nick with "tough love"
And Matthew was a good man! Dammit, Luke.
If Carver hadn't ordered all those people to be killed on the river than there wouldn't have been bodies to investigate, meaning that Nick wouldn't have been driven to avoid going to other side, meaning that Pete wouldn't have been bitten, meaning Nick wouldn't become depressed, meaning Luke wouldn't have a reason to leave Nick behind when he and Clem went on the bridge.
I actually think Nick would've shot Matthew on sight if he had gone with them. He definitely wasn't in the best state of mind after Pete's death, and does have an itchy trigger finger, which is understandable considering what happened to his mom, so if he saw the possibility of Matthew being a threat to his friends, he probably would've shot at him since it's been established Nick prioritizes his friends over everything else, and after Pete's death he didn't want to risk losing anyone else. Although there is the possibility that Luke and/or Clem could've stopped him if he raised the gun or made sure he held his fire... but it didn't seem like Nick would've listened to Luke anyway since they were apparently at odds for those 5 days.
I agree that Luke is somewhat indirectly responsible for Matthew's death though, but it's not entirely his fault since like others said, there were way too many factors that came into play. It was just a very complicated situation, and there could've been many different outcomes. It's honestly hard to say what would've happened if Nick had gone with them since humans can be very unpredictable.
WE MUST GO DEEPER.
You can't blame Luke for that, or Nick for that matter, you could say the same for the death of Ben, Omid, Lee, The Stranger, etc. for example, if Lee didn't fall asleep near the end of episode 4, Clem wouldn't have been kidnapped, so Lee wouldn't have been bit, Kenny wouldn't have been lost, Ben wouldn't have died (if you saved him at crawford) and Omid wouldn't have died because if all the others didn't die, they could have done something about Michelle, see you can go and blame anyone for this for any small reason, it doesn't make sense and doesn't mean its their fault
By that logic, Nick should've shot Walter, Kenny, and Sarita when they approached them at the lodge as well.
What he did honestly had a big thing to do with seeing it from an outsider's perspective and not understanding the context. He probably felt very useless, having been barred from going on the bridge, and that made him feel like he had to prove his worth.
Had he been there on the bridge with them, and gotten aggressive, it wouldn't have been too difficult for Luke to talk him down if he'd given him the chance in the first place. Nick clearly trusts Luke's judgment, and he's not so unstable that he's going to try to kill every person who tries to talk to his friends.
Except Nick didn't shot them this time because Clem was close enough to interred and greet Kenny.
But pete said (determinant) that nick's dad wasn't really around, so he couldn't be all "nice uncle pete"
I do think the group could have treated nick better, but i think they were all worried about the stress he must have been feeling, considering his uncle just died.
I did consider that too, but you have to remember that was after he shot Matthew and obviously regretted it, so he definitely would've been more careful afterwards in order to avoid another mistake like that from happening.
And I agree with you on that, but I feel like he has been trying to prove his worth for a long time, even before the bridge incident. So seeing a random stranger approach him and his friends would definitely make him want to prove himself there too, and after having lost two of his family members, he would do anything to protect his friends. Not saying that would for sure make him shoot any person he sees on sight, but his group had been fleeing from Carver for days and Matthew was probably the first person they encountered, and had a gun, so even from Clem and Luke's distance there's still the possibility he would see Matthew as a threat, and Nick does act irrationally sometimes... so it is likely he could've still attempted to shoot Matthew.
And I don't doubt that Nick trusts Luke's judgement, and didn't mean to imply that he's so unstable that he would try and kill every person who tries to talk to his friends, so sorry if you read my comment that way. But like I said he has moments where he acts irrationally because he wants to prove his worth, and having had a very emotionally traumatizing experience prior to that, he would react quickly, and he has been seen to ignore people when they've had disagreements.
I agree with you though, that the main reason he did shoot Matthew was because he lacked context of the situation, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that he could've still shot Matthew had he gone with Clem and Luke. It would've been less likely, but not impossible, so having him go with Clem and Luke wouldn't have for sure prevented anything bad from happening.
Nick did blame Matthew's death based on the fact that he couldn't hear Luke or Clem shouting to not shot. They were to far away from Nick for Nick to hear them. With meeting Kenny's group, it ends up a better solution.
Just because someone is a grown man does not mean that they understand what they are capable of. Look at Kenny. Anyone who's known him for 20 years would know that he tends to rush headfirst into things and ends up biting off more than he can chew.
Even if you're right about the labeling theory thing, then it would have been something that been ingrained in his psyche for most of his life. So at the moment that we're talking about, Nick would have already have internalized the label. Regardless of whether Nick is an "inherent" screw-up, at that point in time, he was a screw-up.
I laughed. So hard.
Neither Ben and we blame him for everything lol.
That's because the things Ben does are stupid. It's Nick's fault Matthew died, not Luke's.
So... is the blame on Nick's dad, now, then?
But... if Luke hadn't led the group OUT of Carver's camp, Carver wouldn't be on the hunt for them to begin with, and he wouldn't have ordered all those people to be killed by the river, there wouldn't have been bodies to investigate, Nick wouldn't have stayed on the other side, Pete wouldn't have been bitten, Nick wouldn't have fallen into a depression, and Luke wouldn't have had to have a reason to leave Nick behind when he and Clem went on the bridge.
The blame is back on Luke.
Well If the stranger hadn't taken Clem Lee wouldn't have gotten bitten they would of used the boat to escape then Clem avoiding meeting the whole cabin group Luke would have taken nick to the bridge since clem wouldn't be there and matthew would still be alive.
BUT!! If Carver wasn't a crazy and dangerous person, Luke wouldn't had to have led the group out of Carver's camp in the first place. And Carver wouldn't be on the hunt for them, and he wouldn't have ordered all those people to be killed by the river, there wouldn't have been bodies to investigate, Nick wouldn't have stayed on the other side, Pete wouldn't have been bitten, Nick wouldn't have fall into depressions and Luke wouldn't have had to let him behind when going to the bridge.
Carver. [waves fist in the air angrily]
It was a bad situation that got out of hand because of failed communication. There are a lot of people to blame, so let's just not play the blame-card to just one certain character alright?
I thought that it'd be best to have Nick stay back, because someone has to look after the group. I'm not sure if Carlos or Alvin have their own personal guns (I'm assuming Carlos does, as he has one during the climax of 'A House Divided', yet I'm not sure about Alvin). So Nick would be the only responsible person I would trust to watch over the group in case walkers attack.
However if I knew Carlos had a gun, then I would happily let Nick come along, seeing as if anyone tried to attack from the far side of the bridge, Nick has a hunting rifle which provides a much longer range and is able to shoot them.
But the situation had to end as it did, in possibly the worst way possible. Though it's not that bad, as I thought just before he fell off the bridge, he would pull the trigger and end up shooting Luke, Nick or shooting and nearly missing but walkers would be attracted to the group whilst on the bridge.
I think we need BenUseful on this thread NOW!
BUT if only Carver's parents only used "protection", then Carver would've never been born. Then he wouldn't be a crazy, wrinkly-ass guy. Then Luke wouldn't had to have led the group out of Carver's (Which would've became Tavia's camp or something) camp in the first place. And Carver wouldn't be on the hunt for them, and he wouldn't have ordered all those people to be killed by the river, there wouldn't have been bodies to investigate, Nick wouldn't have stayed on the other side, Pete wouldn't have been bitten, Nick wouldn't have fall into depressions and Luke wouldn't have had to let him behind when going to the bridge.
BUT if the ZA never started none of this would have happened.
Geez, if Lee didn't survive the zombie policeman attack, he would've died and he wouldn't have met Clem, who would have died without him too, and we would never have a game because both of our protagonist died.
I win.
Then politicians would've killed us all by then.
Regardless of how things turned out, I think Luke made the right choice. Nick was in no shape to be helping them. Frankly speaking, Nick should've stayed behind. If he had listened to Luke, he would've never shot Matthew.
Haha no, its not. I was replying to @RickEverett99.
Just because he couldn't be nice uncle pete doesn't mean it didn't give nick low self esteem issues
Hmmmm, good point
I'm sorry if my intent behind making this was misinterpreted. I'm not trying to blame Luke for Matthew's death and Nick's determinant status. Luke is my favorite character. I was just doing some "What if" brainstorming and this came to mind.
I'm aware. I was making a joke.
I wouldn't solely blame Pete for it. I think it was part of it, but there were a lot of other factors.
Ohhhhh
I remember reading a story on a situstion where four people who undoubtedly believed they were Jesus reincarnated were placed together and fought frantically over who was the true son of God. They didn't know what they were truly capable of (a lot less than they imagined I would suppose). I would trust a solid 11 year old over a mentally unstable person any day. This is obviously an exaggeration of the situation, but I'd still trust Clem of Nick in his "I'm worth something still, let me show you," minset.