Slow zombies vs. Fast zombies - General

Which type of zombie do you personally like, the slow zombies (shamblers) or the fast zombies (sprinters)? [url=http://www.themorningstarsaga.com/thestrain.html]For those of you who can't decide...check out this book series, pretty cool[/url] For those of you who care to read, I made a list below detailing the pros and cons of both types of zombies. For you illiterate masses, just click on that "reply" button and everything will be k. [b]Sprinter* pros:[/b] -Fast (duh) -Virus spreads fast (no brainer) -More Dexterous than shamblers (look the word up) -Argued that these are the most "realistic" zombies as opposed to the undead ones [b]Sprinter cons:[/b] -Usually just live humans infected with a virus (Dawn of the Dead remake being an exception). Not much of a scare factor -Because they're still human, they can easily die from anything a un-infected human can die from -Outbreak times are usually short: the Infected will eventually starve [b]Shambler* pros:[/b] -More scary (half-eaten, half-rotten dead corpses wanting to eat you? Jesus Christmas) -More resistant (nothing less than obliteration of the brain will kill them. Snap them in half, they still chase you. Chop off their head, the head is still animate.) -Outbreaks are far longer (takes zombies longer to decay, and because they're perfectly preserved when frozen, it can take years, decades, centuries before they all die out) -LOTS of them (cause too many retarded people are brought under a false sense of security just because they're slow) -Doesn't need food, water, or oxygen; they never get bored or tired and won't stop chasing you until you drop dead of exhaustion [b]Shambler cons:[/b] -Slow (Can outrun and sometimes outwalk them) -Stupid (Cannot figure out how to pick up a rock and use it as a weapon, let alone pick up the rock) *I know there's not really any template to use, since technically no zombies exist (drunk hobos being a notable exception). The above two are just archetypes we see in today's media: the shamblers from Max Brooks's "Zombie Survival Guide" and "World War Z", and the sprinters from 28 Days Later.

I personally prefer the old school slow zombies.

I prefer the slower zombies, gives me more time to run away

Just make a movie with a mix of both.

Slower Zombie are the scariest ones imo. Mostly because if you get surrounded by a horde you're fucked. Then again zombies don't exist so I shouldn't be too scared. For now.

I find fast zombies scarier and more interesting.

A friend of mine once asked me the same thing. Personally I think it depends on the settings, if it's modern times like L4D then I think fast running infected people are most realistic, but if it's medieval fantasy settings then I prefer slow moving rotting undead.

Slow. Much scarier and more interesting. Sprinters just suck. The 28 Later series has been like a stab to the chest of the zombie movie industry. If you think shamblers aren't scary, read the comic series "The Walking Dead." Those mother fuckers are nightmarish.

I think both are kickin' rad and can be used in a story well in their own seperate context. NNNNNNNEEEEEEEERDDDDDD post

Slow zombies definatly. The headshot only variety as well.

Slow and dumb ones, my entire plan to survive depends on it.

I like dead zombies the best

Max Brooks never prepared me for fast zombies. :tinfoil:

ITT: People who own the Zombie Survival Guide

I prefer the fast zombies.

ITT: dumb ratings spam [QUOTE=chaz13;17779061]ITT: People who own the Zombie Survival Guide[/QUOTE] There's a zombie survival guide? That is [img]http://i43.tinypic.com/33ojl9d.gif[/img]

Sprinters will [I][B][U]always[/U][/B][/I] be scarier.

I do have a soft spot for infected people, Ala L4D and 28 Days/weeks later. But my entire survival plan is reliant on the zombies being slow, dumb and incapable of climbing.

[QUOTE=wewt!;17779104] There's a zombie survival guide? That is [img]http://i43.tinypic.com/33ojl9d.gif[/img][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/071563318X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255286973&sr=1-1[/url]

[QUOTE=Namo;17779108]Sprinters will [I][B][U]always[/U][/B][/I] be scarier.[/QUOTE] No they aren't. They're easy to kill, their effects on people are limited, and they just look so stupid.

Admittably, I also have a soft spot for Sprinters, but only the ones from either the Morningstar Strain novels or Left 4 Dead. However, after reading World War Z, it's hard for me to think that Sprinters are scary.

Slower are defiantly way more freaked out. I.E. scarier.

Slow zombies represent cold war paranoia, fast zombies represent terrorism.

I call zombie bullshit on those fast one, they shouldn't be allowed to be that fast.

Actually both, I do find Sprinters a lot scarier.

Sprinters give you an adrenaline rush when they charge you, making the whole fear part short lived. But think of being attacked by Shamblers, I mean when you know you're surrounded with no way out, the presence of fear is there, but not the presence of immediate danger that would allow you the burst of numbing Epinephrine that is present in being chased by sprinters.

[QUOTE=Super_Toast;17779223]I call zombie bullshit on those fast one, they shouldn't be allowed to be that fast.[/QUOTE] If there's one thing I hate more than vampires, it's Canada, eh?

I think it depends on how the zombie looks. If it was decomposing down to almost the bone, then it would be much more scary if it had a fast jerking speed. It it was an averege bloodbathed zombie then it would look creepy if it was slower.

[QUOTE=Zeddy;17779160]No they aren't. They're easy to kill, their effects on people are limited, and they just look so stupid.[/QUOTE] Ok then. We'll just see how well you aim when you have zombies sprinting at you from different directions. It's even harder to reload.

I think fast zombies are better for L4D because it'll keep the game fast-paced and intense. But if it's a survival kind of thing, I'd say a shitload of slow zombies would be better.