Slow zombies vs. Fast zombies - General

cool it's really simply a matter of opinion Personally I identify the concept of a zombie more with the sensations that arise while encountering one than the simplistic aspect of them being dead and wanting to eat you - that's really the only reason why I say l4d isn't a zombie game, because the critical aspect that I focus on is missing everyone finds a different aspect scary, the mind eroding psychological effects of having members of your family dead + being nearly alone in a world of an army trying to murder you is what frightens me more, not a bunch of fools running at me going "warglbargl" no one is right until the actual zombie apocalypse comes and at that point I don't think anyone would be having this argument

[QUOTE=Camundongo;17784065]Even if you need headshots to kill shamblers, that doesn't mean that body shots or limb shots aren't effective (Unless the zombies are powered by necromancy or similiar). You could concentrate fire on their legs, leaving them only able to drag themselves along, free for you to walk along, wearing thick clothing, and use blunt instruments to finish the job off. Or if there are loads, use flammable liquids or pitfalls to slow and immobilise them. Hell, even large amounts of razorwire and barbed wire will severely damage them if they have to through them. Anything slow is easy to defend against. Anything fast, or even worse stealthly, is hard to defend against.[/QUOTE] Not really. It could go either way. Defending against swarms of shamblers numbering in the thousands wouldn't be easy: nothing less than 30-feet brick walls will stop a mob that big. And usually, there will be a LOT of shamblers, mostly due to people think that "they're slow and stupid, they're obviously easy to deal with". You'd be surprised at the number of people who will act stupid and get themselves killed/zombified in an outbreak or apocalypse.

Undead ZOMBIES are like pink unicorns with 2 miniguns on both sides and tank turret on head - pure fiction - never gonna happen. I understand by fast zombies you mean living people with some sort of rabies virus (28 days later type). That's kinda possible to happen. That's why I prefer fast ones. Because it make sense, not some harry potter bullshit. Walking corpses are magic. But I still enjoy movies with them. [QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;17785126]You'd be surprised at the number of people who will act stupid and get themselves killed/zombified in an outbreak or apocalypse.[/QUOTE] I see you've survived a zombie apocalypse. Maybe even few of them.

The scariest type of zombie would have to be those what the fuck mutation things like the flood. I mean, if a single spore finds a dead body and inhabits it, it can just fester for years and grow into some fucking huge death trap.

Personally, I like slow, shambling zombies because they induce more enduring, emotional and mental drama (like hiding out in a shelter from them for days or weeks) where as fast zombies aren't as scary because they're too up front. It's all about the subtlety, and the shamblers got it.

Really fast shamblers.

A mix of both, so I can think of creative ways to kill them. LIKE A PIANO :pseudo:

[QUOTE]Undead ZOMBIES are like pink unicorns with 2 miniguns on both sides and tank turret on head - pure fiction - never gonna happen. I understand by fast zombies you mean living people with some sort of rabies virus (28 days later type). That's kinda possible to happen. That's why I prefer fast ones. Because it make sense, not some harry potter bullshit. Walking corpses are magic. But I still enjoy movies with them.[/QUOTE] 28 Days Later is no more realistic---a virus cannot work through a system that fast. See, there's a little something called an incubation period. You might argue that the Rage virus wouldn't need an incubation period...well, there you go, the Rage virus is [i]magic[/i]. Sprinters in general are just as unrealistic as shamblers. There is no way something can run for that long without getting tired. Both can happen. Even though yes, a virus that actually reanimates the dead is improbable. Improbable, but not impossible. [quote]I see you've survived a zombie apocalypse. Maybe even few of them.[/quote] Are you really that thick-headed? I'm not just talking about a zombie apocalypse, I'm talking about general disasters. Just watch the first two minutes of this video: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA&feature=player_embedded]The Day After (Attack Segment)[/url] Hell, they don't even have to be disasters: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7gpAk&feature=player_embedded]Black Friday Stampede[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMKjsGpdYY8&feature=player_embedded]PS3 Mob[/url] This is how people act when they are [b][u]SHOPPING[/b][/u]. You think it will be any better when they are trying to get food, ammo, guns during a national emergency? [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4SHESFJJwA&feature=player_embedded]Canoe Race Riots[/url] That's rioting because of canoe racing. Tell me, how much riots or chaos is going to happen when the masses have been told of a virus that reanimates the dead? And don't get me started on the 1992 L.A. riots. You know, the ones that was caused by a single police video showing police brutality? THAT'S what I mean by our collective stupidity.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;17786632]28 Days Later is no more realistic---a virus cannot work through a system that fast. See, there's a little something called an incubation period. You might argue that the Rage virus wouldn't need an incubation period...well, there you go, the Rage virus is [i]magic[/i]. Sprinters in general are just as unrealistic as shamblers. There is no way something can run for that long without getting tired. Both can happen. Even though yes, a virus that actually reanimates the dead is improbable. Improbable, but not impossible. [/QUOTE] It's quite a bit more realistic actually. Regardless of the incubation period or not (which is moot anyway, there are some super viruses that take hold within hours of contact), the fictional RAGE virus was more or less based off Rabies among other things. They were [B]not[/B] zombies/reanimated corpses. I don't know about you, but a virus that could systematically attack your central nervous system and imbalance the chemicals in your brain to send your CNS into overdrive and constantly in "fight" mode, sounds alot more plausible than something that reanimates the dead... Not to mention RAGE was a human engineered virus...

[QUOTE=professional;17786822]It's quite a bit more realistic actually. Regardless of the incubation period or not (which is moot anyway, there are some super viruses that take hold within hours of contact), the fictional RAGE virus was more or less based off Rabies among other things. They were [B]not[/B] zombies/reanimated corpses. I don't know about you, but a virus that could systematically attack your central nervous system and imbalance the chemicals in your brain to send your CNS into overdrive and constantly in "fight" mode, sounds alot more plausible than something that reanimates the dead... Not to mention RAGE was a human engineered virus...[/QUOTE] Sure it sounds more plausible, but like I said, a virus that reanimates the dead is improbable, but not impossible. One virus, Solanum, does not reanimate corpses per se. Quoted from the Zombie Survival Guide, " "Solanum does not create life, it alters it." "Solanum works by traveling through the bloodstream, from the initial point of entry to the brain. Through means not yet fully understood, the virus uses the cells of the frontal lobe for replication, destroying them in the process. During this period, all bodily functions cease. By stopping the heart, the infected subject is rendered "dead". The brain, however, remains alive but dormant, while the virus mutates its cells into a completely new organ. The most critical trait of this new organ is its independence from oxygen. By removing the need for this all-important resource, the undead brain can utilize, but is in no way dependent upon, the complex support mechanism of the human body. Once mutation is complete, this new organ reanimates the body into a form that bears little resemblance (physiologically speaking) to the original corpse. Some bodily functions remain constant, others operate in a modified capacity, and the remainder shut down completely. This new organism is a zombie, a member of the living dead. " It goes on to say that the virus cannot be injected into a already-dead body, as it will reject the dead cells. Although [i]yes[/i], a rabies-like virus is far more plausible, the point is, there's still a possibility, no matter how remote, of a virus like Solanum coming into being.

From what I now and have known about the Viruses that can form zombies and just how they mutate, me becoming a Biologist of any type will damn the World into oblivion.

I think a zombie that relies on its host's capabilities prior to infection/reanimation is the best kind. A skinny marathon runner will make a zombie that can run for a while. A sprinter will make fast zombies that can run fast for less long. Fatty zombies will do neither. Muscular zombies, athletic zombies, couch potato zombies, you get the point.

If there was a zombie outbreak in real life, i would prefer slow ones, because it isn't as scary and would be easier to survive, but in a movie/game, the fast ones are much scarier and awesome.

irl I'd prefer fast zombies because all it takes is a few shots to the chest / gut to take them down [editline]01:33AM[/editline] slow ones are like fucking unstoppable

Fuck late to this thread, but I must say sprinters are a lot scarier. The fact that they are more "realistic" makes it more spooky. Just the way they convulse and jitter around freaks me out. Also the fact that they are fast. One of those fuckers barreling at you screaming all creepy as fuck looking. [img]http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/785/785236/28-weeks-later-20070502055704684-000.jpg[/img] Holy fuck. Except zombies will never happen. The only plausible way would be rabies, but the symptoms of rabies play out over the course of 2 weeks and it's very noticeable. Also the fact that it pretty much deteriorates your muscles and brain so once you finally get to that crazy mother fucker attack everything point, you wouldn't be able to run and you'd be severely brain damaged. And you'd die within days from the rabies. Still pretty creepy though

I like fast zombies better "Oh no there's a bunch of slow zombies coming to eat us!... any minute now..." as opposed to: "Holy fuck a bunch of fast zombies sprinting at us RUUUNN!!!"

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;17785126]Not really. It could go either way. Defending against swarms of shamblers numbering in the thousands wouldn't be easy: [B]nothing less than 30-feet brick walls will stop a mob that big. [/B]And usually, there will be a LOT of shamblers, mostly due to people think that "they're slow and stupid, they're obviously easy to deal with". You'd be surprised at the number of people who will act stupid and get themselves killed/zombified in an outbreak or apocalypse.[/QUOTE] sounds like you're pretty slow and stupid

[QUOTE=abcpea;17790200]sounds like you're pretty slow and stupid[/QUOTE] I think you got that mixed up with a description of you. *facedesk*

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;17790213]I think you got that mixed up with a description of you. *facedesk*[/QUOTE] He's right though.

Slower zombies are pretty cool. A lot of the older zombies from the 50's were more like this and were nigh unstoppable in most cases.

Never found slow zombies scary at all, I don't know anyone else can. Slow zombies are stupid and slow. I could probably dodge them and headshot them all easily. Fast zombies are fucking fast and dodgy. I'd waste my whole clip just trying to kill one while I can headshot 20 or so slow zombies with 1 clip.

This is why HL² has the best of both worlds

"outwalk" :v:

[QUOTE=Melkor;17778785]I personally prefer the old school slow zombies.[/QUOTE] Agreed, I mean the fast ones, sure they're pretty scary when they're on your tail but a horde of shambling monstrosities that doesn't ever stop coming no matter how far away you are or how fast you run? Pants-wetting to say the least.

[QUOTE=zpiscool;17790683]Agreed, I mean the fast ones, sure they're pretty scary when they're on your tail but a horde of shambling monstrosities that doesn't ever stop coming no matter how far away you are or how fast you run? Pants-wetting to say the least.[/QUOTE] Horde of fast monstrosities that'll always catch up with you because they have absolutely no fatigue and is smart enough to climb over obstacles? I'd rather commit shot to the head rather than run. Let me give you a scenario with 10 zombies and being armed with a pistol. Scenario 1: Shamblers Your armed with a pistol and enough clip to kill all ten of them. Because they are slow and retarded, all you have to do is take careful aim and fire 10 times while the gap between you and them is wide, for them, it'll take a while to reach you. Hell if you had a fence, it might even be easier because they're too slow and dumb to climb over it. Boom headshot, they're dead. And you survived. Good game. Scenario 2: New Generation Your armed with a pistol and enough to kill all ten of them. Too bad you probably waste half your shot. These zombies not know fatigue or pain, deadly combination. You keep shooting, but through your ironsight, all you see is blur as they sprint toward you. The gap between you and them is non-nonexistent, they're fast enough to get Usain Bolt a bronze medal instead. You run and climb over a fence. You sigh in relief because you probably think your safe now. Wrong, these fast motherfuckers climb over and pounce toward you. If they were bit slower, you probably maneuver your way out. But you can't, these hands give blowjob champions run for their money as they claw at your face till it's noting but shreds of flesh. YOUR DEAD. Good game.

Because of this thread, I just watched the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. The first half hour was great, and the last half hour was amazing. The rest was ok but it got kind of slow in the middle. Here's George Romero's thoughts on the remake (specifically the fact that the zombies are fast) [quote]It was better than I expected. I thought it was a good action film. The first 15, 20 minutes were terrific, but it sort of lost its reason for being. It was more of a video game. I'm not terrified of things running at me; it's like Space Invaders. There was nothing going on underneath.[/quote] So without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think George Romero prefers slow zombies, which is a huge score for the shambler lovers.

[QUOTE=cmanatlan;17790840]So without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think George Romero prefers slow zombies, which is a huge score for the shambler lovers.[/QUOTE] Of course he fucking would. I'd go with Fast zombies being scarier.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;17790832] I'd rather [b]commit shot[/b] to the head rather than run. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;17790271] I'd waste my whole clip just trying to kill one while I can headshot 20 or so slow zombies with 1 clip.[/QUOTE] [Quote] Your armed with a pistol and enough [b]clip[/b] to kill all ten of them. you probably waste half your [b]shot.[/b] [/quote] [quote] [b]clip[/b] [/quote] [quote] [b]good game[/b] [/quote] FFFFF- [img]http://mirrorcracked.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/arnold_angry.jpg[/img] I'd love to see this imaginary pistol that fires shot, and loads from a clip instead of a magazine.

im sorry sir, english is not my first language. wait isnt clip = magazine = ammo

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;17791634]im sorry sir, english is not my first language. wait isnt clip = magazine = ammo[/QUOTE] No bro. [img]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/livetoskate34/51840105.jpg[/img]