A lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand why so many of us want Nate to come back and be Clem's caretaker. It's not about whether he'd be a good caretaker or a bad caretaker. It's about what Clem and Nate can gain and lose from each other, what they can learn from being companions.
To help those of you who don't understand, lets first go over what we know about the two characters.
Nate has shown he is unpredictable, uses humor to make it through the day, and is someone who can easily dispose of anyone who threatens his safety. We know that it's very likely he has lost part of his mind, whether he was like this to begin with or if the apocalypse caused it, we don't know. Clearly Nate is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters from 400 Days, wouldn't it be intriguing to find out more about his back story? As for Clem, we know that Clem was once a very weak, easily frightened and sheltered, innocent girl, but the apocalypse has molded her into a despondent adult/child hybrid, someone who is capable of doing the morally right thing, but is also just as capable of doing the morally gray/wrong thing. Someone who has killed before her 10th birthday. She can protect herself majority of the time, but isn't invincible. She is no longer afraid of the apocalypse because of what she's been exposed to, and if this is how she is after only 16 months, imagine how she'd be by the time she came across Nate?
To put these two personalities together would be so interesting, because they would be on equal ground, Nate might not even see her as a child, but just as a person who could be his companion. That's how I saw his interactions with Russel, Nate wanted him to be his friend, to stay with him so he wasn't alone. Why else would he pick him off the side of the road, Nate obviously had no plans to kill him. Russel, still being new to this kind of world, was unnerved by Nate's readiness to kill, but it's hard to tell if Nate is even aware of how frightening he came across to Russel. He still let Russel leave in the end, Nate didn't force him to stay even if he wanted him to. Clem has been exposed to the ugliness of the world already, has already done so many ugly things. I don't think that Nate would faze her. Maybe irritate her, but not scare her. And given the stoic maturity she has shown in s2, it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded, and Nate would be the intimidating henchman that keeps her safe from the people who are bigger and stronger than her, those who threaten her life. If he became attached to her, I'd argue he would do absolutely anything to keep her alive by any means necessary. And to speculate how Clem would handle this type of loyalty..there are just so many possible reactions. Maybe Clem would become darker like Nate, or maybe she'd pull him a little closer to the light, just by being there with him. They'd be each other's guardians, Clem would keep his mind and sanity safe, where Nate would keep her physically safe in any way he could. There is so much untapped potential for an amazing story line in this possible partnership. I wish others would realize this.
A lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand why so many of us want Nate to come back and be Clem's caretaker. It's not about whethe… morer he'd be a good caretaker or a bad caretaker. It's about what Clem and Nate can gain and lose from each other, what they can learn from being companions.
To help those of you who don't understand, lets first go over what we know about the two characters.
Nate has shown he is unpredictable, uses humor to make it through the day, and is someone who can easily dispose of anyone who threatens his safety. We know that it's very likely he has lost part of his mind, whether he was like this to begin with or if the apocalypse caused it, we don't know. Clearly Nate is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters from 400 Days, wouldn't it be intriguing to find out more about his back story? As for Clem, we know that Clem was once a very weak, easily frightened and sheltered, innocent girl, but the a… [view original content]
He was also drinking so I can just imagine what he would do if it were Clem on the side of the road.
LOL Because Drinking = Child M… moreolestation.
He didn't cover Russell like he said he would
Yeah he did, the second time :P
Why would he care about the old people? They were dead anyways.
Good point that having Nate and Clem together could make for an interesting story, but I just see Nate as a threat to everyone and feel he would take advantage or harm Clem without any remorse. Hannibal Lecter was an interesting character too, but would you trust him with Clem?
it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded
I see it as trying to tame a wild tiger. Sure he would be intimidating and could protect Clem, but eventually would turn on her because that's his nature! IMO he is too far removed from a compassionate person and into a wild killer that enjoys this world with no cares or consequences.
A lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand why so many of us want Nate to come back and be Clem's caretaker. It's not about whethe… morer he'd be a good caretaker or a bad caretaker. It's about what Clem and Nate can gain and lose from each other, what they can learn from being companions.
To help those of you who don't understand, lets first go over what we know about the two characters.
Nate has shown he is unpredictable, uses humor to make it through the day, and is someone who can easily dispose of anyone who threatens his safety. We know that it's very likely he has lost part of his mind, whether he was like this to begin with or if the apocalypse caused it, we don't know. Clearly Nate is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters from 400 Days, wouldn't it be intriguing to find out more about his back story? As for Clem, we know that Clem was once a very weak, easily frightened and sheltered, innocent girl, but the a… [view original content]
Drinking does = lack of judgement which could lead to child molsetation
Not covering Russell the first time means he can't be trusted.
… more He didnt care a bit about the old people, that's why he killed them.
now put all these together and it answers the question of this thread. Would you trust Nate to take care of Clem and AJ?
I absolutely would not!
A while back ago someone posted a thread asking who we hate the most, my top 2 were Larry and Nate and that still hold's true!
Good point that having Nate and Clem together could make for an interesting story, but I just see Nate as a threat to everyone and feel he w… moreould take advantage or harm Clem without any remorse. Hannibal Lecter was an interesting character too, but would you trust him with Clem?
it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded
I see it as trying to tame a wild tiger. Sure he would be intimidating and could protect Clem, but eventually would turn on her because that's his nature! IMO he is too far removed from a compassionate person and into a wild killer that enjoys this world with no cares or consequences.
Nah, Nate isn't a "asswipe" like. He just has a corky type nature about him.He just murdered those old folks because they drew on him and the supplies.
Yes, I know that he pretty disrespectful when it come to talking about women. But im sure that he isn't into little girls like that. I think he would probably respect Clem because being a little girl who can survive on her own and take out walkers.
I can imagine him calling her his " little ass kicker" something stupid like.
Maybe him being Clem's and Aj's caretaker will change his change his character because the first time in his life he has someone who relys on him
To be fair, we don't know enough about Nate to label him as a psychotic killer. He did kill the elderly couple, but they were shooting at him and could have killed him too, so given that it's the apocalypse, it's not hard to understand why he took them out. He tried to kill Eddie and Wyatt because they killed his friend. It doesn't matter if Wyatt and Eddie said Nate's friend was an asshole or crazy, because their thoughts on the matter are subjective. What it comes down to is that two strangers killed Nate's friend, so he goes into a rage and tries to take revenge. In the modern world this would be morally wrong, but in the apocalypse it makes sense why he'd want to kill them for what they did, and plenty of others would do the same thing.
The last person we see Nate come into contact is Russel, which proves that he doesn't kill/want to kill every person he meets. Russel did nothing to threaten Nate, so Nate had no reason to harm Russel, nor did he want to hurt Russel. We don't know if "turning on people" is in Nate's nature, because he let Russel go if you chose not to stay. Nate doing what he legitimately thinks is right in his head isn't turning on Russel. Threatening to kill Russel if he leaves would be turning on him, which he doesn't do.
The way I see it, his philosophy seems to be "if you try to hurt me/hurt my friends, I will kill you. If you don't, we're good." Now it's likely that Nate isn't all there in the head sometimes, and yeah the guy is crude as hell, but he isn't a psychotic unhinged murderer. There isn't enough back story or support to prove such a claim. Objectively, Nate is no more a killer than any other person we've been introduced to in this game who has killed in order to protect themselves. Let me be clear that I don't think Nate is a good person, I just don't think he's necessarily a bad person.
Good point that having Nate and Clem together could make for an interesting story, but I just see Nate as a threat to everyone and feel he w… moreould take advantage or harm Clem without any remorse. Hannibal Lecter was an interesting character too, but would you trust him with Clem?
it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded
I see it as trying to tame a wild tiger. Sure he would be intimidating and could protect Clem, but eventually would turn on her because that's his nature! IMO he is too far removed from a compassionate person and into a wild killer that enjoys this world with no cares or consequences.
alcohol does impair judgement just as I said and gives reasonable cause that Nate could harm Clem and AJ.
rather than admit that's correct, you ignore the fact and flip it to weed and isis which were never even discussed in this topic.
but you go ahead and side with someone like Nate.. I'll just say "I told you so" as Nate rummages through your corpse looking for your baggie!
sure, flip the comment to ignore the fact.
alcohol does impair judgement just as I said and gives reasonable cause that Nate could harm C… morelem and AJ.
rather than admit that's correct, you ignore the fact and flip it to weed and isis which were never even discussed in this topic.
but you go ahead and side with someone like Nate.. I'll just say "I told you so" as Nate rummages through your corpse looking for your baggie!
I just think you should give him a chance, its unfair to judge him on maybe 15 minutes of game play, and we don't know his reasons why he did the things he did. Look at the other psychos in this game, Jane/Kenny. Your telling me those people are better??
at first glance I thought this thread was a joke but in reading I realize some of you actually think Nate is a good guy?? would be good for … moreClem??
it's amazing how different people can see the same thing but take a different perspective from it.
If Nate were to show up and I had the option, I (Clem) would shoot on sight before he could cause her harm.
Yes I know Clem doesnt know Nate from 400days at all and wouldnt have cause to kill him on sight, but I know who he is and have no doubt he would harm and/or kill AJ and rape/kill Clem.
Options are:
wait and see if Nate is really a nice guy or not, but then, it's too late.
kill him asap and not worry about him.
Yeah Nate is no worse than Jane or Kenny in term of actions and motives. There is an unused dialogue option where Jane talks about having sex with sheep with Clementine
I just think you should give him a chance, its unfair to judge him on maybe 15 minutes of game play, and we don't know his reasons why he di… mored the things he did. Look at the other psychos in this game, Jane/Kenny. Your telling me those people are better??
Don't take it out of context. Jane told a joke about hillbillies fucking sheep. You can argue it was inappropriate, but in no way does it show Jane being psychotic or anything comparable to the horrible shit she, Kenny, and Nate have done.
True, Nate may not be any worse than Jane or Kenny, which is exactly why I wouldn't give him half a chance. I didn't go with Kenny or Jane either, so I'd leave Nate's worthless ass on the roadside.
Yeah Nate is no worse than Jane or Kenny in term of actions and motives. There is an unused dialogue option where Jane talks about having sex with sheep with Clementine
Out of Jane, Kenny or Nate I would pick Nate. Jane is selfish and would abandon or let Clem and AJ die if she could save herself or get ahead. Kenny is better because he shows genuine care for both Clem and AJ but he's way too reckless and impulsive and would get them killed. Nate may be cruel but can at least remain calm and keep his shit together enough to think things through and would never cause any intentional harm to Clem or AJ. If he got emotionally connected to them and saw someone try to hurt them he'd bite their throat out. That's why he's more fit then either Kenny or Jane.
Don't take it out of context. Jane told a joke about hillbillies fucking sheep. You can argue it was inappropriate, but in no way does it sh… moreow Jane being psychotic or anything comparable to the horrible shit she, Kenny, and Nate have done.
True, Nate may not be any worse than Jane or Kenny, which is exactly why I wouldn't give him half a chance. I didn't go with Kenny or Jane either, so I'd leave Nate's worthless ass on the roadside.
absolutely! in a ZA it's better safe than sorry.. Safe=alive...sorry=dead.
Pot calling Kettle?? I don't think so as I've the same thing many times around here. I fall under the survivalist catagory willing to do what I must to survive which includes not allowing someone I do not trust to harm me first.
Nate were to show up and I had the option, I (Clem) would shoot on sight before he could cause her harm.
So you would kill someone? Pot calling Kettle maybe?
Jane being psychotic or anything comparable to the horrible shit she, Kenny, and Nate have done.
No, however leaving a baby in a unlocked car with the windows open unattended in a zombie infested highway is, or the fact where she lies about it in order to kill Kenny.
Don't take it out of context. Jane told a joke about hillbillies fucking sheep. You can argue it was inappropriate, but in no way does it sh… moreow Jane being psychotic or anything comparable to the horrible shit she, Kenny, and Nate have done.
True, Nate may not be any worse than Jane or Kenny, which is exactly why I wouldn't give him half a chance. I didn't go with Kenny or Jane either, so I'd leave Nate's worthless ass on the roadside.
Pot calling Kettle?? I don't think so as I've the same thing many times around here. I fall under the survivalist catagory willing to do what I must to survive which includes not allowing someone I do not trust to harm me first.
Of course you don't, the world is filled with hypocrisy.
absolutely! in a ZA it's better safe than sorry.. Safe=alive...sorry=dead.
Pot calling Kettle?? I don't think so as I've the same thing … moremany times around here. I fall under the survivalist catagory willing to do what I must to survive which includes not allowing someone I do not trust to harm me first.
Today's world is full of many types including hypocrits, murderers, good, evil etc.. During a ZA, their would just be many more but so what? Really think calling anyone a name or placing a label on them is truely going to make any difference?? Call me anything you wish, it doesnt matter one bit when the ultimate goal is survival.
Pot calling Kettle?? I don't think so as I've the same thing many times around here. I fall under the survivalist catagory willing to do wha… moret I must to survive which includes not allowing someone I do not trust to harm me first.
Of course you don't, the world is filled with hypocrisy.
Today's world is full of many types including hypocrits, murderers, good, evil etc.. During a ZA, their would just be many more but so what?… more Really think calling anyone a name or placing a label on them is truely going to make any difference?? Call me anything you wish, it doesnt matter one bit when the ultimate goal is survival.
wow, how did Christa get brought into this? you have to be a troll.. you make no sence.. the topic is if we would trust Nate with Clem and all you do is bring up characters or events that have nothing to do with the topic.
but I will say I have always been indifferent towards Christa. She was fine, nice enough, but I dont dwell over what may have happened or miss her.
You know what all that sounds like? Clementine and Kenny in season 2. A few differences here and there, but doing everything to keep her safe and Clementine keeping his sanity in check? Yep, Clem and Kenny. Do I want to see that again? Hell no. It was forced as hell the first time, and I can't imagine it'd be any better this time, and it would be another retread to the extremely tired "complicated asshole male figure forming a bond with a tough young female" trope.
Lee and Clementine were so great to me exactly because Lee was not this asshole who needed to be "saved" by the purity that is Clementine. Even asshole Lee playthroughs show his reasonable side constantly and how much he cares for Clementine from the start. His status as a murderer was only a tiny part of his overall character, despite it being something that haunted him. And even if you play him as bad, he is never saved or kept grounded by Clementine, he finds his own redemption in saving her life, and it is his actions that inform and empower Clementine. It was a nice change and dynamic because it didn't fit the usual trope completely. Luke was almost that as well, but that was never really seen through to the end.
It's not that I don't see the possibilities, it's that this is a tired narrative and I don't find myself all that eager to explore the character of an asshole.
A lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand why so many of us want Nate to come back and be Clem's caretaker. It's not about whethe… morer he'd be a good caretaker or a bad caretaker. It's about what Clem and Nate can gain and lose from each other, what they can learn from being companions.
To help those of you who don't understand, lets first go over what we know about the two characters.
Nate has shown he is unpredictable, uses humor to make it through the day, and is someone who can easily dispose of anyone who threatens his safety. We know that it's very likely he has lost part of his mind, whether he was like this to begin with or if the apocalypse caused it, we don't know. Clearly Nate is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters from 400 Days, wouldn't it be intriguing to find out more about his back story? As for Clem, we know that Clem was once a very weak, easily frightened and sheltered, innocent girl, but the a… [view original content]
wow, how did Christa get brought into this? you have to be a troll.. you make no sence.. the topic is if we would trust Nate with Clem and … moreall you do is bring up characters or events that have nothing to do with the topic.
but I will say I have always been indifferent towards Christa. She was fine, nice enough, but I dont dwell over what may have happened or miss her.
okay, let's see.. the un-armed girl was armed and just shot Omid after trying to rob Clem. Anyone would have done the same in this situation. Did you forget that part?? Sure she dropped the gun when Christa came in, but that's her own damn fault, she could have just shot Christa while she was looking down at Omid.
It's funny how people tend to omit particular details to try to make their point valid!
To each their own. I didn't see the dynamic between Kenny and Clem the way you see it. Nor did I think it was forced. What you have is an opinion, and as do I. For example, I find the relationship between Jane and Clem to be incredibly forced.
I never thought Kenny was losing it or was out of touch with reality, as I see with Nate. Kenny was passionate, firm in his viewpoint/direction, had a clear idea of what was important in his life, was subject to several tragedies due to the apocalypse which is why he's so resentful of the new world, and was callous with people who disagreed with him/people he didn't consider family/friends. Kenny wasn't out of his mind in season 2, he was under a hell of a lot of stress, pissed off, and in the midst of grief, but not mentally unsound or insane.
Now, Nate is a completely different story. Nate is far more unpredictable and depraved, he doesn't seem to think anything is important in this new life. His mind has adjusted to this world in an odd way, he finds humor in some of the most sick and tragic things to come out of the apocalypse, but doesn't harm anyone who doesn't harm him first. He doesn't want to be alone anymore, that much is obvious from his interactions with Russel. He isn't psychotic, he's not even angry about what has happened since the apocalypse began apparently, but he most certainly is not well. I don't see any similarities between Kenny and Nate, and the potential dynamic between Nate and Clem would not be as familial as Kenny and Clem.
Again, that's an opinion. Lee's one of my favorites, but he was definitely an asshole a lot of the time, even when he wasn't intentionally played as an asshole. His whole arc with Clem was about redemption, he finds peace and is saved through his relationship with Clem. If he hadn't found Clem, I'd argue his journey would have ended differently, and not in redemption.
Now, Kenny and Clem's relationship isn't what I think would happen with Nate and Clem, I think it's possible for Clem to be a presence of light for Nate, but given how dark she's become in season 2, her light at whatever point she meets Nate would be barely flickering in contrast to his dull gray. It wouldn't be about good bringing evil into the light, for there is no redemption for either Nate or Clem after living this long in such a world. I think Clem could ease his mind, perhaps make him a little more sane and keep him grounded, but she can't change him or fix him. The Clem I envision wouldn't be capable of innocence or being a source of hope anymore. However, Nate could change Clem, intentionally or unintentionally, in the worst kind of way. It would be about corruption, sinking into madness due to what this new world has forced them to become. It would test what little morality Clem has left, the line between morally good and morally bad choices would be far more ambiguous and gray, more so than they've ever been in season 1-2. This story line could also give an uncensored insight into the mind of the unsound if we were to play as Nate. I think that such a dark and controversial story line is fitting for the Walking Dead Game.
You know what all that sounds like? Clementine and Kenny in season 2. A few differences here and there, but doing everything to keep her saf… moree and Clementine keeping his sanity in check? Yep, Clem and Kenny. Do I want to see that again? Hell no. It was forced as hell the first time, and I can't imagine it'd be any better this time, and it would be another retread to the extremely tired "complicated asshole male figure forming a bond with a tough young female" trope.
Lee and Clementine were so great to me exactly because Lee was not this asshole who needed to be "saved" by the purity that is Clementine. Even asshole Lee playthroughs show his reasonable side constantly and how much he cares for Clementine from the start. His status as a murderer was only a tiny part of his overall character, despite it being something that haunted him. And even if you play him as bad, he is never saved or kept grounded by Clementine, he finds his own redempti… [view original content]
okay, let's see.. the un-armed girl was armed and just shot Omid after trying to rob Clem. Anyone would have done the same in this situatio… moren. Did you forget that part?? Sure she dropped the gun when Christa came in, but that's her own damn fault, she could have just shot Christa while she was looking down at Omid.
It's funny how people tend to omit particular details to try to make their point valid!
Last night I was going through TWD achievements and saw the one for Russell's story.. It's called "Survived Nate".
I just can't see how people think Nate would be good for Clem when the game's achievement is earned for surviving being with him.
InfiniteDawn
Nate isn't a rapist. Can we not throw judgement around like that? Especially on that topic?!
Very true, Nate hasen't raped anyone, but would you put them together to see what would happen? Would you be willing to put Clem at risk just to see if your right?
I will admit, it's not fair to Nate to say kill him on sight before he can harm Clem because they never even met, but IMO if Nate were introduced in Season 3, I would absolutely expect him to be a "bad guy".
Nate was never a villain or presented in that light. Going after Wyatt and Eddie was justified because they murdered his friend. This shows as an adequate test of what could happen if someone tried to hurt Clem or AJ. Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him. If anything we would see something similar to how Larry tried to protect Lily. He would go to very far and sick lengths to keep them safe and protected. Nate was never a villain. He was presented as an ally with very questionable motives. At the end of the day having a friend or someone he cares about could change his perspective on things and lighten him up
Last night I was going through TWD achievements and saw the one for Russell's story.. It's called "Survived Nate".
I just can't see how peo… moreple think Nate would be good for Clem when the game's achievement is earned for surviving being with him.
InfiniteDawn
Nate isn't a rapist. Can we not throw judgement around like that? Especially on that topic?!
Very true, Nate hasen't raped anyone, but would you put them together to see what would happen? Would you be willing to put Clem at risk just to see if your right?
I will admit, it's not fair to Nate to say kill him on sight before he can harm Clem because they never even met, but IMO if Nate were introduced in Season 3, I would absolutely expect him to be a "bad guy".
There is no "right" or "wrong", but Nate definitely had reason to kill them, might as well, those old bags had no chance. And they were trying to kill them, period.
When did Nate, even impy that hed rape anybody. Plenty of guys talk to each other about women like that, honestly I'm not even sure he was s… moreerious about it
Well, first of all, I case you didn´t catch it, I was kind of joking. Second, I think he was only fucking with Russell, but he could have been serious. And yes, plenty of guys talk like that, the difference is that Nate is in the ZA and there is nothing to stop him for actually doing it.
Again... when was this a thing with him, he asked russel to rate a walker... thats it
I was just exaggerating for comedic effect, dude. I didn´t say that Nate literally faps to walkers.
In any case, you can´t honestly say that somebody who could do that is fit to act as a caretaker.
After they shot and tried to kill him you mean?
So what? Does that make it right? He should have understood that they didn´t mean it, that they were just scared and panicked, but Nate kill… [view original content]
Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him.
I just remember something like. "go, i'll cover you"! Russell runs and Nate does NOT cover him.. Russell says something like "what happened to i'll cover you?" in which Nate replies, "look how good you did"!
Ok, Nate didnt hurt Russell in that scene but he sure didn't help and waited to see if Russell would make it or not.
Too much risk with Nate and to compare him with Larry.. I helped Kenny salt lick Larry without hesitation.. Remember, it was Larry that tried to kill Lee. Maybe you can understand his motives in trying to protect his daughter, as Lee was trying to protect Clem, but to ignore that and allow him to live til he tries again, allow Nate near Clem and AJ to see if he truely tries to protect them or let's them take a risk just to say, "look how good you did".
I for one cannot agree to allow Nate near Clem and AJ because I feel Nate would harm them without hesitation or remorse.
Nate was never a villain or presented in that light. Going after Wyatt and Eddie was justified because they murdered his friend. This shows … moreas an adequate test of what could happen if someone tried to hurt Clem or AJ. Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him. If anything we would see something similar to how Larry tried to protect Lily. He would go to very far and sick lengths to keep them safe and protected. Nate was never a villain. He was presented as an ally with very questionable motives. At the end of the day having a friend or someone he cares about could change his perspective on things and lighten him up
I too helped Kenny kill him but it had nothing to do with what I thought of him as a person. He says goodbye to Lilly and you can hear sounds of him turning in unused audio. I could understand how Larry was because its the apocalypse and there could be a possibly dangerous person near his daughter. He's no hero in his own right and neither is Nate but Nate would be protective to Clem and AJ and ruthless to those who could be a threat. To your point about Russell yes it was an irresponsible move but Russell was a young adult that Nate knew for a few minutes opposed to children he would be emotionally attached to them and having a family.
Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him.
I just remember something … morelike. "go, i'll cover you"! Russell runs and Nate does NOT cover him.. Russell says something like "what happened to i'll cover you?" in which Nate replies, "look how good you did"!
Ok, Nate didnt hurt Russell in that scene but he sure didn't help and waited to see if Russell would make it or not.
Too much risk with Nate and to compare him with Larry.. I helped Kenny salt lick Larry without hesitation.. Remember, it was Larry that tried to kill Lee. Maybe you can understand his motives in trying to protect his daughter, as Lee was trying to protect Clem, but to ignore that and allow him to live til he tries again, allow Nate near Clem and AJ to see if he truely tries to protect them or let's them take a risk just to say, "look how good you did".
I for one cannot agree to allow Nate near Clem and AJ because I feel Nate would harm them without hesitation or remorse.
I know Nate isn't truly evil, but I think that the Telltale series of the Walking Dead lacks an actual villain: someone that needs to be stop, someone with true malice, a person who kills when he want and does what he please.
I think it would be nice to introduce Nate in season 3 as a anarchist leader of some-kind of brigands group that just do the most horrific stuff to survivors they come across. Similar to Negan in the comics or like the comics Hunters and/or Governor.
To each their own. I didn't see the dynamic between Kenny and Clem the way you see it. Nor did I think it was forced. What you have is an op… moreinion, and as do I. For example, I find the relationship between Jane and Clem to be incredibly forced.
I never thought Kenny was losing it or was out of touch with reality, as I see with Nate. Kenny was passionate, firm in his viewpoint/direction, had a clear idea of what was important in his life, was subject to several tragedies due to the apocalypse which is why he's so resentful of the new world, and was callous with people who disagreed with him/people he didn't consider family/friends. Kenny wasn't out of his mind in season 2, he was under a hell of a lot of stress, pissed off, and in the midst of grief, but not mentally unsound or insane.
Now, Nate is a completely different story. Nate is far more unpredictable and depraved, he doesn't seem to think anything is important in this new life. Hi… [view original content]
That would be a predictable move, to make Nate the antagonistic evil villain. Depending how it is executed it could be really cool though, like you said it was with Negan. Personally, I like the idea of a very morally gray apocalypse, where one can understand why/what caused a person to do evil things and become what they are. There's something more unnerving and disturbing about that, to have your set in stone morals and values blurred beyond your recognition or control.
I know Nate isn't truly evil, but I think that the Telltale series of the Walking Dead lacks an actual villain: someone that needs to be sto… morep, someone with true malice, a person who kills when he want and does what he please.
I think it would be nice to introduce Nate in season 3 as a anarchist leader of some-kind of brigands group that just do the most horrific stuff to survivors they come across. Similar to Negan in the comics or like the comics Hunters and/or Governor.
Personally, He is a well thought up character. I just don't like how Tell Tale is just treating like a nice unused tuxedo that looks nice, but is always in the closet.
They need to introduce him some kind of fashion in season 3, Or atleast state at some point that he is dead ,so we can all move on.
If in season 3 he is a villain, I think it would be because his group runaway from him because they feel that he is a threat to them, similar to why the group abandoned Kenny in No Going Back. At that point, meets a group in the woods who are just like him. And later because he fears that this group will leave him too, he kills the leader secretly, assuming violent charge in the group.
I'll be funny to just see a sad neglected Nate just wondering the woods, trying to find somewhere to be accepted.
That would be a predictable move, to make Nate the antagonistic evil villain. Depending how it is executed it could be really cool though, l… moreike you said it was with Negan. Personally, I like the idea of a very morally gray apocalypse, where one can understand why/what caused a person to do evil things and become what they are. There's something more unnerving and disturbing about that, to have your set in stone morals and values blurred beyond your recognition or control.
So if you had a lover and they were laying dead right in front of you and you saw a stranger with a gun in their hand you would chalk it up as an accident and move on? No man. No dice. I would've done the same as Christa. If you don't agree than let a loved one of yours get killed in the same fashion and lets see how you react.
anyone would have done the same in this situation
Nope, sorry, i wouldn't shoot a unarmed teenager over a mistake.
Sure she d… moreropped the gun when Christa came in, but that's her own damn fault,
Christa shouldn't of shot a unarmed girl.
It's funny how people tend to omit particular details to try to make their point valid!
I noticed.
Comments
A lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand why so many of us want Nate to come back and be Clem's caretaker. It's not about whether he'd be a good caretaker or a bad caretaker. It's about what Clem and Nate can gain and lose from each other, what they can learn from being companions.
To help those of you who don't understand, lets first go over what we know about the two characters.
Nate has shown he is unpredictable, uses humor to make it through the day, and is someone who can easily dispose of anyone who threatens his safety. We know that it's very likely he has lost part of his mind, whether he was like this to begin with or if the apocalypse caused it, we don't know. Clearly Nate is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters from 400 Days, wouldn't it be intriguing to find out more about his back story? As for Clem, we know that Clem was once a very weak, easily frightened and sheltered, innocent girl, but the apocalypse has molded her into a despondent adult/child hybrid, someone who is capable of doing the morally right thing, but is also just as capable of doing the morally gray/wrong thing. Someone who has killed before her 10th birthday. She can protect herself majority of the time, but isn't invincible. She is no longer afraid of the apocalypse because of what she's been exposed to, and if this is how she is after only 16 months, imagine how she'd be by the time she came across Nate?
To put these two personalities together would be so interesting, because they would be on equal ground, Nate might not even see her as a child, but just as a person who could be his companion. That's how I saw his interactions with Russel, Nate wanted him to be his friend, to stay with him so he wasn't alone. Why else would he pick him off the side of the road, Nate obviously had no plans to kill him. Russel, still being new to this kind of world, was unnerved by Nate's readiness to kill, but it's hard to tell if Nate is even aware of how frightening he came across to Russel. He still let Russel leave in the end, Nate didn't force him to stay even if he wanted him to. Clem has been exposed to the ugliness of the world already, has already done so many ugly things. I don't think that Nate would faze her. Maybe irritate her, but not scare her. And given the stoic maturity she has shown in s2, it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded, and Nate would be the intimidating henchman that keeps her safe from the people who are bigger and stronger than her, those who threaten her life. If he became attached to her, I'd argue he would do absolutely anything to keep her alive by any means necessary. And to speculate how Clem would handle this type of loyalty..there are just so many possible reactions. Maybe Clem would become darker like Nate, or maybe she'd pull him a little closer to the light, just by being there with him. They'd be each other's guardians, Clem would keep his mind and sanity safe, where Nate would keep her physically safe in any way he could. There is so much untapped potential for an amazing story line in this possible partnership. I wish others would realize this.
Couldn't explain it better take my like!
Drinking does = lack of judgement which could lead to child molsetation
Not covering Russell the first time means he can't be trusted.
He didnt care a bit about the old people, that's why he killed them.
now put all these together and it answers the question of this thread. Would you trust Nate to take care of Clem and AJ?
I absolutely would not!
A while back ago someone posted a thread asking who we hate the most, my top 2 were Larry and Nate and that still hold's true!
Good point that having Nate and Clem together could make for an interesting story, but I just see Nate as a threat to everyone and feel he would take advantage or harm Clem without any remorse. Hannibal Lecter was an interesting character too, but would you trust him with Clem?
it very well may be Clem keeping Nate in line, keeping him grounded
I see it as trying to tame a wild tiger. Sure he would be intimidating and could protect Clem, but eventually would turn on her because that's his nature! IMO he is too far removed from a compassionate person and into a wild killer that enjoys this world with no cares or consequences.
And smoking Pot supports Isis. I know I know...
The wild, crazy side of Nate is just being tough. You have to be tough and intimidating in the apocalypse or people will take you for a pussy.
Nah, Nate isn't a "asswipe" like. He just has a corky type nature about him.He just murdered those old folks because they drew on him and the supplies.
Yes, I know that he pretty disrespectful when it come to talking about women. But im sure that he isn't into little girls like that. I think he would probably respect Clem because being a little girl who can survive on her own and take out walkers.
I can imagine him calling her his " little ass kicker" something stupid like.
Maybe him being Clem's and Aj's caretaker will change his change his character because the first time in his life he has someone who relys on him
To be fair, we don't know enough about Nate to label him as a psychotic killer. He did kill the elderly couple, but they were shooting at him and could have killed him too, so given that it's the apocalypse, it's not hard to understand why he took them out. He tried to kill Eddie and Wyatt because they killed his friend. It doesn't matter if Wyatt and Eddie said Nate's friend was an asshole or crazy, because their thoughts on the matter are subjective. What it comes down to is that two strangers killed Nate's friend, so he goes into a rage and tries to take revenge. In the modern world this would be morally wrong, but in the apocalypse it makes sense why he'd want to kill them for what they did, and plenty of others would do the same thing.
The last person we see Nate come into contact is Russel, which proves that he doesn't kill/want to kill every person he meets. Russel did nothing to threaten Nate, so Nate had no reason to harm Russel, nor did he want to hurt Russel. We don't know if "turning on people" is in Nate's nature, because he let Russel go if you chose not to stay. Nate doing what he legitimately thinks is right in his head isn't turning on Russel. Threatening to kill Russel if he leaves would be turning on him, which he doesn't do.
The way I see it, his philosophy seems to be "if you try to hurt me/hurt my friends, I will kill you. If you don't, we're good." Now it's likely that Nate isn't all there in the head sometimes, and yeah the guy is crude as hell, but he isn't a psychotic unhinged murderer. There isn't enough back story or support to prove such a claim. Objectively, Nate is no more a killer than any other person we've been introduced to in this game who has killed in order to protect themselves. Let me be clear that I don't think Nate is a good person, I just don't think he's necessarily a bad person.
sure, flip the comment to ignore the fact.
alcohol does impair judgement just as I said and gives reasonable cause that Nate could harm Clem and AJ.
rather than admit that's correct, you ignore the fact and flip it to weed and isis which were never even discussed in this topic.
but you go ahead and side with someone like Nate.. I'll just say "I told you so" as Nate rummages through your corpse looking for your baggie!
Anyone "can" hurt Clementine., if the writers wanted to they could write it so that Clementine shoots herself in the head.
Very true, but the discussion is about Nate and if we would trust him around Clem, so adding anyone or Telltale is irrelevant to the topic.
I want that scene in season 3.
I just think you should give him a chance, its unfair to judge him on maybe 15 minutes of game play, and we don't know his reasons why he did the things he did. Look at the other psychos in this game, Jane/Kenny. Your telling me those people are better??
So you would kill someone? Pot calling Kettle maybe?
Yeah Nate is no worse than Jane or Kenny in term of actions and motives. There is an unused dialogue option where Jane talks about having sex with sheep with Clementine
Don't take it out of context. Jane told a joke about hillbillies fucking sheep. You can argue it was inappropriate, but in no way does it show Jane being psychotic or anything comparable to the horrible shit she, Kenny, and Nate have done.
True, Nate may not be any worse than Jane or Kenny, which is exactly why I wouldn't give him half a chance. I didn't go with Kenny or Jane either, so I'd leave Nate's worthless ass on the roadside.
Out of Jane, Kenny or Nate I would pick Nate. Jane is selfish and would abandon or let Clem and AJ die if she could save herself or get ahead. Kenny is better because he shows genuine care for both Clem and AJ but he's way too reckless and impulsive and would get them killed. Nate may be cruel but can at least remain calm and keep his shit together enough to think things through and would never cause any intentional harm to Clem or AJ. If he got emotionally connected to them and saw someone try to hurt them he'd bite their throat out. That's why he's more fit then either Kenny or Jane.
absolutely! in a ZA it's better safe than sorry.. Safe=alive...sorry=dead.
Pot calling Kettle?? I don't think so as I've the same thing many times around here. I fall under the survivalist catagory willing to do what I must to survive which includes not allowing someone I do not trust to harm me first.
No, however leaving a baby in a unlocked car with the windows open unattended in a zombie infested highway is, or the fact where she lies about it in order to kill Kenny.
Of course you don't, the world is filled with hypocrisy.
Today's world is full of many types including hypocrits, murderers, good, evil etc.. During a ZA, their would just be many more but so what? Really think calling anyone a name or placing a label on them is truely going to make any difference?? Call me anything you wish, it doesnt matter one bit when the ultimate goal is survival.
I bet your a Christa supporter.
wow, how did Christa get brought into this? you have to be a troll.. you make no sence.. the topic is if we would trust Nate with Clem and all you do is bring up characters or events that have nothing to do with the topic.
but I will say I have always been indifferent towards Christa. She was fine, nice enough, but I dont dwell over what may have happened or miss her.
You know what all that sounds like? Clementine and Kenny in season 2. A few differences here and there, but doing everything to keep her safe and Clementine keeping his sanity in check? Yep, Clem and Kenny. Do I want to see that again? Hell no. It was forced as hell the first time, and I can't imagine it'd be any better this time, and it would be another retread to the extremely tired "complicated asshole male figure forming a bond with a tough young female" trope.
Lee and Clementine were so great to me exactly because Lee was not this asshole who needed to be "saved" by the purity that is Clementine. Even asshole Lee playthroughs show his reasonable side constantly and how much he cares for Clementine from the start. His status as a murderer was only a tiny part of his overall character, despite it being something that haunted him. And even if you play him as bad, he is never saved or kept grounded by Clementine, he finds his own redemption in saving her life, and it is his actions that inform and empower Clementine. It was a nice change and dynamic because it didn't fit the usual trope completely. Luke was almost that as well, but that was never really seen through to the end.
It's not that I don't see the possibilities, it's that this is a tired narrative and I don't find myself all that eager to explore the character of an asshole.
I brought Christa into this conversation because everyone loves her, and she shot a unarmed girl.
Did you forget. It happened in S2 E1.
okay, let's see.. the un-armed girl was armed and just shot Omid after trying to rob Clem. Anyone would have done the same in this situation. Did you forget that part?? Sure she dropped the gun when Christa came in, but that's her own damn fault, she could have just shot Christa while she was looking down at Omid.
It's funny how people tend to omit particular details to try to make their point valid!
To each their own. I didn't see the dynamic between Kenny and Clem the way you see it. Nor did I think it was forced. What you have is an opinion, and as do I. For example, I find the relationship between Jane and Clem to be incredibly forced.
I never thought Kenny was losing it or was out of touch with reality, as I see with Nate. Kenny was passionate, firm in his viewpoint/direction, had a clear idea of what was important in his life, was subject to several tragedies due to the apocalypse which is why he's so resentful of the new world, and was callous with people who disagreed with him/people he didn't consider family/friends. Kenny wasn't out of his mind in season 2, he was under a hell of a lot of stress, pissed off, and in the midst of grief, but not mentally unsound or insane.
Now, Nate is a completely different story. Nate is far more unpredictable and depraved, he doesn't seem to think anything is important in this new life. His mind has adjusted to this world in an odd way, he finds humor in some of the most sick and tragic things to come out of the apocalypse, but doesn't harm anyone who doesn't harm him first. He doesn't want to be alone anymore, that much is obvious from his interactions with Russel. He isn't psychotic, he's not even angry about what has happened since the apocalypse began apparently, but he most certainly is not well. I don't see any similarities between Kenny and Nate, and the potential dynamic between Nate and Clem would not be as familial as Kenny and Clem.
Again, that's an opinion. Lee's one of my favorites, but he was definitely an asshole a lot of the time, even when he wasn't intentionally played as an asshole. His whole arc with Clem was about redemption, he finds peace and is saved through his relationship with Clem. If he hadn't found Clem, I'd argue his journey would have ended differently, and not in redemption.
Now, Kenny and Clem's relationship isn't what I think would happen with Nate and Clem, I think it's possible for Clem to be a presence of light for Nate, but given how dark she's become in season 2, her light at whatever point she meets Nate would be barely flickering in contrast to his dull gray. It wouldn't be about good bringing evil into the light, for there is no redemption for either Nate or Clem after living this long in such a world. I think Clem could ease his mind, perhaps make him a little more sane and keep him grounded, but she can't change him or fix him. The Clem I envision wouldn't be capable of innocence or being a source of hope anymore. However, Nate could change Clem, intentionally or unintentionally, in the worst kind of way. It would be about corruption, sinking into madness due to what this new world has forced them to become. It would test what little morality Clem has left, the line between morally good and morally bad choices would be far more ambiguous and gray, more so than they've ever been in season 1-2. This story line could also give an uncensored insight into the mind of the unsound if we were to play as Nate. I think that such a dark and controversial story line is fitting for the Walking Dead Game.
Nope, sorry, i wouldn't shoot a unarmed teenager over a mistake.
Christa shouldn't of shot a unarmed girl.
I noticed.
Nate isn't a rapist. Can we not throw judgement around like that? Especially on that topic?!
Last night I was going through TWD achievements and saw the one for Russell's story.. It's called "Survived Nate".
I just can't see how people think Nate would be good for Clem when the game's achievement is earned for surviving being with him.
InfiniteDawn
Nate isn't a rapist. Can we not throw judgement around like that? Especially on that topic?!
Very true, Nate hasen't raped anyone, but would you put them together to see what would happen? Would you be willing to put Clem at risk just to see if your right?
I will admit, it's not fair to Nate to say kill him on sight before he can harm Clem because they never even met, but IMO if Nate were introduced in Season 3, I would absolutely expect him to be a "bad guy".
Nate was never a villain or presented in that light. Going after Wyatt and Eddie was justified because they murdered his friend. This shows as an adequate test of what could happen if someone tried to hurt Clem or AJ. Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him. If anything we would see something similar to how Larry tried to protect Lily. He would go to very far and sick lengths to keep them safe and protected. Nate was never a villain. He was presented as an ally with very questionable motives. At the end of the day having a friend or someone he cares about could change his perspective on things and lighten him up
Nate is not a bitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
There is no "right" or "wrong", but Nate definitely had reason to kill them, might as well, those old bags had no chance. And they were trying to kill them, period.
Yes in Russell's story he murdered the old couple but was never any threat to Russell and actually helped him.
I just remember something like. "go, i'll cover you"! Russell runs and Nate does NOT cover him.. Russell says something like "what happened to i'll cover you?" in which Nate replies, "look how good you did"!
Ok, Nate didnt hurt Russell in that scene but he sure didn't help and waited to see if Russell would make it or not.
Too much risk with Nate and to compare him with Larry.. I helped Kenny salt lick Larry without hesitation.. Remember, it was Larry that tried to kill Lee. Maybe you can understand his motives in trying to protect his daughter, as Lee was trying to protect Clem, but to ignore that and allow him to live til he tries again, allow Nate near Clem and AJ to see if he truely tries to protect them or let's them take a risk just to say, "look how good you did".
I for one cannot agree to allow Nate near Clem and AJ because I feel Nate would harm them without hesitation or remorse.
I too helped Kenny kill him but it had nothing to do with what I thought of him as a person. He says goodbye to Lilly and you can hear sounds of him turning in unused audio. I could understand how Larry was because its the apocalypse and there could be a possibly dangerous person near his daughter. He's no hero in his own right and neither is Nate but Nate would be protective to Clem and AJ and ruthless to those who could be a threat. To your point about Russell yes it was an irresponsible move but Russell was a young adult that Nate knew for a few minutes opposed to children he would be emotionally attached to them and having a family.
I know Nate isn't truly evil, but I think that the Telltale series of the Walking Dead lacks an actual villain: someone that needs to be stop, someone with true malice, a person who kills when he want and does what he please.
I think it would be nice to introduce Nate in season 3 as a anarchist leader of some-kind of brigands group that just do the most horrific stuff to survivors they come across. Similar to Negan in the comics or like the comics Hunters and/or Governor.
That would be a predictable move, to make Nate the antagonistic evil villain. Depending how it is executed it could be really cool though, like you said it was with Negan. Personally, I like the idea of a very morally gray apocalypse, where one can understand why/what caused a person to do evil things and become what they are. There's something more unnerving and disturbing about that, to have your set in stone morals and values blurred beyond your recognition or control.
Personally, He is a well thought up character. I just don't like how Tell Tale is just treating like a nice unused tuxedo that looks nice, but is always in the closet.
They need to introduce him some kind of fashion in season 3, Or atleast state at some point that he is dead ,so we can all move on.
If in season 3 he is a villain, I think it would be because his group runaway from him because they feel that he is a threat to them, similar to why the group abandoned Kenny in No Going Back. At that point, meets a group in the woods who are just like him. And later because he fears that this group will leave him too, he kills the leader secretly, assuming violent charge in the group.
I'll be funny to just see a sad neglected Nate just wondering the woods, trying to find somewhere to be accepted.
So if you had a lover and they were laying dead right in front of you and you saw a stranger with a gun in their hand you would chalk it up as an accident and move on? No man. No dice. I would've done the same as Christa. If you don't agree than let a loved one of yours get killed in the same fashion and lets see how you react.