Poll: Fast Zombies or Slow Zombies?

[zombiejoe]

Which one do you like to watch more in movies or fight more in video games, ect.

I came up with this thread because of the strange rivalry with Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead


Left 4 Dead seems to constantly try to one-up Dead Rising, and Dead Rising 2 may have made a come back.

So then I thought "Left 4 Dead has fast zombies, Dead Rising has slow, both are good games, but which zombies do people like more?"

Please vote and explain why

 

[Beat14]

I prefer slow and the atmosphere it creates in my eyes, as I like a zombie game to ideally be about survival with limited resources where the threat is in mass numbers but rather slow paced and dumb. Early resident evil I guess.

Quick zombies just aren't zombies in my eyes.

 

[Azurian]

Well growing up with classic zombie movies I'll always take slow moving zombies over anything. But as for L4D I don't know nothing about them says zombie to me I still love the game and I play it with my friends but unless their slow moving and trying to eat you nothing about them will say zombie to me. Dead Rising on the other hand those were zombies to me though and though slow moving moaning and groaning constantly surround by the undead with almost no place to go that's a zombie atmosphere to me.

 

[Jonluw]

Slow, because when I think of zombies, I think of one large mass of boiling flesh and bone making its way forward destroying everything in its path.
The fast zombies sort of require them to be slightly intelligent, while I like to think of them as more of a force in nature.
An avalanche rather than a pack of wolves, if you catch my drift.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Slow. There's alot more time to appreciate and think of your battle plan. and I've never been snuck up on by a slow zombie.

But more then that and outside gaming (since this is the Off Topic forum), going by how zombies would deterierate in nature every day it goes on, I dont want a fast zombie. I want a slow zombie, one that stumbles and takes longer, thereby deteriorating more.

 

[Reaper195]

Slow, because they are reanimated corpses, which is what zombies are. And are more atmospheric. Fast zombies, which are usually not reanimated corpses anyway (And if they are, proves movie is stupid (Day of the Dead Remake)), are just annoying and make no sense, are are pretty much an instant death sentence. It would be next to impossible to get a clean head shot on something running very fast, never mind a horde (Fuck Left 4 Dead).

 

[Griphphin]

I'm apparently not alone in thinking slow zombies are the scarier of the two (though I'm never alone!), surprising that it's this one-sided though.
I feel like slow zombies is more creepy and eerie, where fast zombies imply intense action. Action-y scary never really scares me liek eerie, uncanny scary does.

 

[Lieju]

Well, both can be used effectively to invoke horror or suspence or action, or not so well.

But in my mind the thing that makes it a "zombie game/movie/book" is the idea of being surrounded by countless creatures that by themselves are not much of a threat, kinda slow and not too strong, even. But the horror comes from being surrounded, the enemy just advancing on you from every side, slowly, every one you kill instantly replaced by new ones.

The Borg, for example, fit in my mind into the zombie-category, some fast super-powered ones to "monsters".

 

[^=ash=^]

Slow, they just feel like zombies. Fast 'Zombies' screams "Infected" not reanimated corpses.

As well as the other more well explained answers above me.

xxx

 

[Gaz6231]

An avalanche rather than a pack of wolves, if you catch my drift.

Thread-winning post right there.

 

[linkvegeta]

Slow zombies mostly because it makes sense, they are mostly dead and most of their muscles have decomposed so therefor allowing only slow movement, same thing with the brain its barely functioning and therefor should not allow a zombie to whip its head around to look at you then sprint, thats just silly.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

They're both good in there own merits. Slow Zombies are fun to kill, but are easier to deal with.

Fast Zombies offer hectic gameplay, but they can quickly become overwhelming.

I'd say they're pretty even fun wise and challenging wise.

 

[Dastardly]

Both.

The majority of the zombies should be slow-moving shamblers, but there's nothing wrong with a little more immediate threat. The few fast-moving zombies, perhaps representative of recently-reanimated zombies, present a different type of threat.

It's not either/or. To me, asking "fast or slow?" is like asking someone "do you want food or drink?" Drink may be more immediately important, but having both is still much better.

 

[Whitenail]

I prefer slow zombies, despite their speed they're alot scarier than fast zombies in the strange, shambling, moaning pack-hunter way that roided up, blood-spewing screamers aren't.

Besides, most movies with fast zombies tend to represent the idea of speed and ferocity in almost everything they do, horror just boils down to "Shock the audience as much as you can", the cuts are always rapid, the music's always fast-paced and intense, the characters seem to rapidly develop and think in order to compete with the situation so on and so forth. When a zombie movie, game or book quite literally takes things slow then the rest of the work tends to follow suit, giving us more time to take in just what a dreadful, living nightmare the zombie apocalypse would be.

 

[Weslebear]

There needs to be a both option, I love a mixture.

For more fun hacking style games a la Dead Rising, I love me some slow zombies but a massive horde of them to chop through.

For survival or horror it's a mixture, it gets you going when a zombie just breaks into an unexpected sprinting shuffle and you only have a pistol out.

 

[Wrists]

Slow zombies are great if there are lots of them, just for the obvious overwhelming "You're all going to die" sort of way.

On the other hand, the fast zombies of Ravenholm still cause me to run in circles shooting anything with a shadow, so they must have done something right.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Fast. Because if we practice killing a bunch of fast zombies all the time, and the eventual breakout of zombieness ends up making slow zombies, then we're okay, if they're fast zombies then we're still okay.

If we just kill slow ones all the time and they turn out to be fast, we're fucked.

In the words of the army, "practice how you fight"

 

[Daffy F]

I think they're different. I refuse to vote though, that would be like choosing one child over another. Fast Zombies can make excellent horror films - See 28 days later/I am legend - but slow Zombies can ALSO make fantastic Zombie films - See ANYTHING by Romero/Shaun of the Dead (Epic win). I can't choose and you can't make me! (The same thing applies with Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead. They're ALL good games)

 

[Blind Sight]

Depends on how they're done, I like Left4Dead's take on the fast zombie just because they come in hordes, crawling over stuff and avoiding things in their way, making it really feel like there's nowhere you can hide. Slow zombies can be very effective as well, ala the Walking Dead, where there's just so many of them and you're completely surrounded. Basically, fast zombies invoke my fear of rioters, but slow zombies invoke the fear of my fellow man, so I guess I'd have to support them first.