Poll: Fast Zombies vs. Slow Zombies

[oogaboogacaveman]

For the longest time I thought that the only good zombie was a slow zombie, but I recently got L4D2 and this changed my opinions. Now I think that fast and slow zombies are both acceptable, as long as the slow zombie can only be killed by a headshot and a fast zombie can be killed any way a normal human can be killed.

Discuss.

 

[Jark212]

Theirs no such thing as fast zombies...

Max says so...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Slow and steady wins the race, as they say. Running zombies come from several places at once, sure, but slow zombies come in a huge pack. You can't shoot your way out of a zombie-wall!

 

[Julianking93]

If you mean better for me, slow zombies.

I personally like faster ones though.

And we don't like vs threads here.

 

[link141]

Faster zombies are much funner.

 

[Littlee300]

Fast zombies will run up and bite you, slow zombies, well there just not intimidating.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Slow is more traditional, but I prefer faster ones, it ups the terror. I think slow Zombs are about the tension and the fact that you're outnumbered 100 to 1 by a shambling pack of fuckers who won't die, while a mob of fast running infected will make you brick it in an instant though like you said, you can mow them down.

 

[rmcsqrd]

Faster zombies would suck in real life, but they make for some great cinema.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

If you mean better for me, slow zombies.

I personally like faster ones though.

And we don't like vs threads here.

We say that though, and yet these threads get so many replies.

Theirs no such thing as fast zombies...

Max says so...

Who's Max?

 

[Pielikey]

I prefer slow zombies but either one works. Left 4 Dead probably wouldn't have the same paced action if all the hordes shuffled.

Theirs no such thing as fast zombies...

Max says so...

Who's Max?

I believe he means Maxx Brooks, the writer of The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. (Both really good books)

EDIT: Though I might be wrong, idk.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Slow zombies are better, because fast zombies reach you in small trickles. Slow zombies, on the other hand, tend to form massive mobs before they reach you, meaning you end up getting attacked by over a hundred at once, instead of twelve. And I don't care what kind of assault rifle you have, unless you have a jetpack, you are going to die.

 

[Julianking93]

Theirs no such thing as fast zombies...

Max says so...

Who's Max?

He's probably referring to Maxthereaper.

Maybe, I don't know.

 

[Hybrid Sight]

I prefer slow, shambling, kill by sheer numbers kinda zombies.

 

[Jedoro]

It's a damn shooting gallery when they're all slow. The fast ones tend to be more intelligent, and if I'm fighting for my life, I'd rather have the odds stacked in my favor as much as possible.

 

[AkJay]

In movies, I prefer fast zombies, slow George Romero zombies just seem to make it less interesting (I preferred Dawn of the Dead '04 over 1978). If it were a real life thing, I would definitely prefer the slow ones.

 

[lacktheknack]

Think of Resident Evil, the first one. Or better yet, the original Alone in the Dark.

Do you WANT those zombies moving faster than they already are? I thought not.

 

[Rock4ever]

I like both. I'm zombie myself.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Theirs no such thing as fast zombies...

Max says so...

Who's Max?

He's probably referring to Maxthereaper.

Maybe, I don't know.

I won't lie, I'm sure he is. I literally asked that question for no reason. I was going to write "C wut I did thar?" in white font, but I couldn't be arsed, and it wouldn't have made sense.

 

[Therumancer]

I don't think they make a big differance in the overall scheme of things. In general I answered "slow Zombies" because one of the things that occured to me about fast zombies is that while more of a threat to individuals and small groups, and harder to simply outpace, they would also be easier to destroy through simple enviromental methods given the fact that you can rely on them pretty much going "mad dog" and rushing heedlessly straight for whomever they detect. Heightened agression coming along with the speed traditionally.

The point being that a bunch of shamblers aren't going to get to a trap anytime quickly and there is more time for a horde to assemble itself. Plus something as simple as a tripwire or whatever could wreck havoc with the fast ones. Where the slow ones would just press against it if you could get a pack of runners to charge at you, a well placed wire could enable you to take them down very easily.

There are a lot of reasons.

Simply put I think the faster zombies would result in more fatalities in the short term/initial discovery, but slower zombies present more of a long term threat especially seeing as where the fast ones will come running right at you, you can never be 100% sure that you've gotten all the traditional slow ones which might be stuck in some wierd place at any given time.

Just my thoughts.

 

[GreyWolf257]

I prefer slow zombies.

Also, do you ever get that feeling of deja vu?