What happened with Nick?

I've been wondering...... why did they HAVE to kill Nick in episode 4?

Did they ever explain that? Becouse really in the end his presence in Episode 5 wouldhave change absolutelly nothing (well lukes speech but thats it)

So why did they HAVE to kill him?

Comments

  • Telltale with Determinants characters = die

  • Why did they kill Lee? Chuck? Pete? Brie? Ben? I don't know. It's a game bro, deal with it. We all hated that Nick had to die, but nobody knows why he died except Telltale, so don't expect any good answers on this thread.

  • Nick can die on episode 2 already.

  • i don't expect answers i just want to hear theories and talk about something thats not the Kenny vs Jane thing but thaks for commenting

    here have a like just for that

    Why did they kill Lee? Chuck? Pete? Brie? Ben? I don't know. It's a game bro, deal with it. We all hated that Nick had to die, but nobody knows why he died except Telltale, so don't expect any good answers on this thread.

  • and yet telltale kept him alive longer than every single other determinant (in walking dead)

    zykelator posted: »

    Nick can die on episode 2 already.

  • Not a clue. I think the bullet that he was shot with was originally going to play some significance as it's been proven that the bullet did not lead to his death (unless it did, but it was never shown).

    Alt text

    It's a shame, because some form of a story arc about him growing up was hinted at by at least two characters.

    Pete:That no one in this world is gonna give a Goddamn whether you like something or not. You gotta grow up son.

    ...

    Nick: Say that again.

    Kenny: I'd stay out of this boy.

    Nick: Mister I ain't a boy.

    Kenny: (Sarcasm) Right, you're a man.

  • Well Carley and Doug also stayed alive for the same amount of time.

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    and yet telltale kept him alive longer than every single other determinant (in walking dead)

  • edited September 2014

    Oh, well the question usually has to be answered but okay. I honestly don't know, and thanks for the like!

    P.S I think you're my grandfather on the chart :p

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    i don't expect answers i just want to hear theories and talk about something thats not the Kenny vs Jane thing but thaks for commenting here have a like just for that

  • He was still one of the only people with any development in this whole thing :)

    dojo32161 posted: »

    Not a clue. I think the bullet that he was shot with was originally going to play some significance as it's been proven that the bullet did

  • Clementine: The same thing that happens to everyone

  • yeah but they don't count becouse i wasen't a a choice of life or death ( theirs was one or the other)

    dojo32161 posted: »

    Well Carley and Doug also stayed alive for the same amount of time.

  • Well they atleast had a part in the story. All nick did in episode 3 & 4 was growl as undead.

    dojo32161 posted: »

    Well Carley and Doug also stayed alive for the same amount of time.

  • I at least liked the optional conversation you could have with him in episode 3. That was pretty good. After that, he was basically ignored the entire episode, which contradicted his character.

    zykelator posted: »

    Well they atleast had a part in the story. All nick did in episode 3 & 4 was growl as undead.

  • well he did piss of kenny once in a while

    then they were sort of nice to each other whitch lead to nothing

    and he does get alot of unique lines

    including him becoming lukes chearleader ( whitch kida makes sense)

    o and he was there in every impotant scene ( exept the sara one)

    yep he stood there and sometimes had an expression on his face that was about 60 to 70 of his role in ep 3

    he proved to us that you can survive in the walking dead a long time by doing nothing for a whole ep but talk and stand

    zykelator posted: »

    Well they atleast had a part in the story. All nick did in episode 3 & 4 was growl as undead.

  • edited September 2014

    yeah i never got that eithere

    i mean 50% of ep 2 is Nick development regardless of choice

    dojo32161 posted: »

    I at least liked the optional conversation you could have with him in episode 3. That was pretty good. After that, he was basically ignored the entire episode, which contradicted his character.

  • Not entirely true, we got a bit of development on the other characters, but (IMO) Nick definitely got the most out of them all. They were all kind of shafted once episode 3 came out.

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    He was still one of the only people with any development in this whole thing

  • They could've made it onscreen. I'd understand if it was a one ep character but a character they spent most of Ep2 on? No

  • edited September 2014

    TWAU doesn't do it :3

    Shumisha posted: »

    Telltale with Determinants characters = die

  • True, but it shows they can write stories with determinants surviving and even helping :P That was surprising imo, I thought it really was too hard but they've proved they can make it work. Like if they do one or two determinants each season? :3 Less hard work but more gain

  • Bad writing is what happened, such a godly mullet shouldn't be treated like that, i mean he could've been Kenny successor in that department!

  • He should have died in the gunfight in E5, this would have been a much better, deserving death for Nick.

    (Deserving in the fact it was heroic and died defending the group, not the fact he deserved to die:)

  • What happened to Nick? Well...

    He has passed on, he has ceased to be. He has expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff, bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he wasn't stuck in the fence, he'd be pushing up the daisies! He's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!

    This is an ex-farmboy!

  • did you really just refrence nostalgia critic ? lol

    Lingvort posted: »

    What happened to Nick? Well... He has passed on, he has ceased to be. He has expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff, bereft of

  • Because earlier in the game he could die based on your decisions. Every character that has the possibility of dying based on decisions will die later no matter what you do. This is one of the things I complain about regularly. So you can know from this point on if a character is saved by you in some way they are going to die later anyways.

  • This isn't exactly a Nostalgia Critic's reference, it is a reference to Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch (which the Nostalgia Critic references in his review of "The Room").

    Funny enough, I was once corrected in the exact same way when I thought it was NC's reference. I'll leave a link for "Dead Parrot" sketch video, so you can see it for yourself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    did you really just refrence nostalgia critic ? lol

  • yeah i've always know that

    but it still dosent justify the death they gave him in ep4 at all

    Kennyftw posted: »

    Because earlier in the game he could die based on your decisions. Every character that has the possibility of dying based on decisions will

  • wow thaks i didn't know that :)

    Lingvort posted: »

    This isn't exactly a Nostalgia Critic's reference, it is a reference to Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch (which the Nostalgia Critic refe

  • That's pretty much what I said when I was told it wasn't exactly the NC's reference. :)

    Hope you'll like Monty Python.

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    wow thaks i didn't know that

  • He was another annoying character who I felt bad for the way he went... I'm really hoping they make some game changes because I don't know if I want to play another game that just kills everyone. I want a game that is more story driven, and a little more fun. The constant, and (now) predictable deaths of nearly every character have really turned the game into more of a story of how you lose everyone you care about. That's just depressing to me, and not entertaining.

    Lord_EAA posted: »

    yeah i've always know that but it still dosent justify the death they gave him in ep4 at all

  • Personal bias from the writer is what got him (and Sarah) killed anticlimactically, at least that's what I believe happened in Episode 4.

    Compared to other determinant characters in both seasons, both Nick and Sarah have been dealt a rough hand when they were killed off. The writer cared little for Nick and Sarah, and this was shown when he decided to not have anyone mourn for them for longer than two seconds or barely acknowledge it when their inevitable deaths occurs, and wants the players to behave the same way.

  • The funny thing about that is, someone once thought I was referencing NC when I mentioned a bit from the sketch, and I didn't even know what NC was.

    Lingvort posted: »

    That's pretty much what I said when I was told it wasn't exactly the NC's reference. Hope you'll like Monty Python.

  • bad writing happened

  • Welcome to The Walking Dead.

    Kennyftw posted: »

    He was another annoying character who I felt bad for the way he went... I'm really hoping they make some game changes because I don't know

  • With how Episode 5 went, Nick could've easily made it through to reach it, even Sarah.

  • Lazy shock value.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.