Zombies are infected, not rising from grave things. Those are undead, zombies are a mutated version of humans.
Poll: Are Left 4 Dead/28 Days Later "zombies" really zombies?
- Thread starter LaMer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think they cal L4D zombies 'the infected' deliberately to point out how they're not to be considered normal zombies. Dead Rising zombies are more or less the expected zombie.
I don't care what your definition is; if it wants my flesh and/or brains it is a zombie.
If it is a zombie, I'm screwed.
If it is a zombie, I'm screwed.
They fall into the scientific zombie niche. Killer virus turns humans into unfeeling cannibalistic shells that multiplies when said shells bite other humans.
I've seen them classed differently this way as opposed to the grave-rising, strictly brain oriented diet, or magical curse variety.
I've seen them classed differently this way as opposed to the grave-rising, strictly brain oriented diet, or magical curse variety.
Pretty much that. Think of them, as people with a flu, only more violent, and ugly at times (spitter)VincentX3 said:
I have no problem calling them zombies. However, they aren't technically zombies. Like many have already said, they have to be alive then die, and come back to life.
So I guess you could use the term 'infected' when referring to the 'living' zombies which is used in the L4D series
So I guess you could use the term 'infected' when referring to the 'living' zombies which is used in the L4D series
Living Zombies like in 28 Days Later are a valid modern variation of zombie. Really, every single movie franchise and game has a different concept of "zombie". I don't think I've seen any two zombie franchises use the exact same variant of zombie lore.
According to the zombie survival guide, which is the only book featuring TRUE facts about REAL zombiesVincentX3 said:
-D), the 'infected' in games such as Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor are INDEED zombies. However, they are NOT alive even though we claim they are. The virus they have ALTERS life, it does not destroy it.So short answer, Yes, they are zombies.
I blame Max Brooks for starting this trend of being snobbish over zombies. If we keep arguing much longer about who gets excluded from club zombie, I'm gonna have to get a wineglass so I can pretentiously extend my pinky.
If you want to be highbrow about it, both infected and Romero zombies exist primarily in hordes, so they both represent different aspects of groupthink: on the one hand you could have public panic or mob outrage; on the other, suburban complacency or cultural torpor. Symbolic as all hell, that is.
Aside: But not of man's hubris, that's retarded. Anything that comes out of a lab represents hubris, be it zombies, dinosaurs, or giant intelligent mako sharks.
But let's look at a parallel situation: What are vampires? Stoker, Rice, Meyer. There's no convention here. So what is the one thing that makes you say "Ah, that's a vampire"? Of course, vampires drink blood. If a guy's called a vampire and he doesn't drink blood, you say "Sure, why not, but are you SURE you're a vampire?"; a bloke wears an Aztec mask and shoots high-pressure water beams from his eyes, but then he goes and sucks someone's blood, you say "Ah, he's a vampire". The definition is inclusive, not exclusive; if this criterion is met, then everything else is gravy.
Same with zombies. Roomie's walking around after midterms on twenty-four hours without sleep, you say "Phil's a zombie today". It's figurative, but what did you mean? You meant that Phil had lost all higher brain function. The criterion by which the eyes of (oh dear, if there are "experts", then I must use the word "laypersons" here...) identifies some thing as a zombie is the loss of reason.
That's why Dawn of the Dead has zombies, Infected are zombies, headcrabs make zombies, and Ganados are zombis, and why if someone says "What about {Jesus, genestealers, Frankenstein's Creature} you have to mull it over and have a stupid debate.
If you want to be highbrow about it, both infected and Romero zombies exist primarily in hordes, so they both represent different aspects of groupthink: on the one hand you could have public panic or mob outrage; on the other, suburban complacency or cultural torpor. Symbolic as all hell, that is.
Aside: But not of man's hubris, that's retarded. Anything that comes out of a lab represents hubris, be it zombies, dinosaurs, or giant intelligent mako sharks.
But let's look at a parallel situation: What are vampires? Stoker, Rice, Meyer. There's no convention here. So what is the one thing that makes you say "Ah, that's a vampire"? Of course, vampires drink blood. If a guy's called a vampire and he doesn't drink blood, you say "Sure, why not, but are you SURE you're a vampire?"; a bloke wears an Aztec mask and shoots high-pressure water beams from his eyes, but then he goes and sucks someone's blood, you say "Ah, he's a vampire". The definition is inclusive, not exclusive; if this criterion is met, then everything else is gravy.
Same with zombies. Roomie's walking around after midterms on twenty-four hours without sleep, you say "Phil's a zombie today". It's figurative, but what did you mean? You meant that Phil had lost all higher brain function. The criterion by which the eyes of (oh dear, if there are "experts", then I must use the word "laypersons" here...) identifies some thing as a zombie is the loss of reason.
That's why Dawn of the Dead has zombies, Infected are zombies, headcrabs make zombies, and Ganados are zombis, and why if someone says "What about {Jesus, genestealers, Frankenstein's Creature} you have to mull it over and have a stupid debate.
Well originally, none of those examples are.
This movie here showed probably the closest example of what zombies really are.
This movie here showed probably the closest example of what zombies really are.