Poll: Fast Zombies vs. Slow Zombies

[Dragon Zero]

I don't know about you but a slow Zombie just seems more unnerving. Let me explain, With fast zombies, you can always tell that it is still somewhat human because of the fluid, natural movements of running. Slow Zombies have an awkward pace about them, something truly alien, unfamiliar. You see one moving and you truly feel like you've seen something far more sinister, unrelenting, inhuman, and evil.

Plus slow zombies more often than not in fiction are created through dark magics which are far deadlier than any virus. Think of Liches, essentially Zombies with a brain, a Zombie that can harm you with magics but also have age and time and patience to go along with the advantages of the undead. Viruses can be cured, can be contained, controlled, while these magics once cast are as unstoppable as time itself.

And God do I need a hobby!

 

[Arisato-kun]

The Zombie Survival Guide has proven that fast zombies don't exist. Since slow zombies are the only kind of zombie I was required to vote for them.

Why can't there ever be a flying zombie? It's always either fast or slow or dog, but a flying zombie'd be the last thing you expect.
"Get in the jeep we have to go!"
"Hang on! I just have to finish chainsawing this z- What the fuck is that?!"
"What- Oh my god it's flying! AGH! Nooooooo! Brendan!"
*mauled by flying zombie*

Meet balloon zombie.

 

[YoUnG205]

Fast zombies are scarier IMHO because I wouldn't last an hour during THAT apocalypse! I'd at least survive a day or two in the slow zombie one.

Slow they is the classic. just look at Dawn of the dead.

Original or remake?
Original = slow
Remake = fast

Original of course. That is the better of the two.

 

[Jaxek13]

fast zombie = death, slow zombie = fun.

 

[Numb1lp]

Fast zombies are scary as hell, because, well, they can catch you.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

christ I love your avatar OP!!

anyways I agree with you though I think the speed,
if it's a fresh zombie then maybe a very quick stumbling jog
a rotten 2 month old one from the swamps of Alabama shouldn't do more than a slow limp

 

[AvsJoe]

Fast zombies are scarier IMHO because I wouldn't last an hour during THAT apocalypse! I'd at least survive a day or two in the slow zombie one.

Slow they is the classic. just look at Dawn of the dead.

Original or remake?
Original = slow
Remake = fast

Original of course. That is the better of the two.

Matter of opinion. I like the remake slightly more even though I know it's just Hollywood tripe compared to much more meaningful original.

 

[Spiner909]

Fast zombies keep my adrenalin up and reflexes sharp.
Slow zombies keep my senses keen and aim steadier.

 

[SFR]

The poll says nothing about differences in intellegence, so fast zombies all the way. Slow ones are generally dumber anyway. I don't think they're a threat at all. If you can do a medium paced walk, you'll be fine. And why would they bunch up more? If they're all moving the same pace, and there's the same amount of zombies, fast or slow, they'll bunch up the same amount.

So, what I'm saying is, I prefer fast zombies in games (at least they RUN to you and then slow down), but I would prefer slow zombies in real life, as they'd be super easy to deal with.

 

[internetzealot1]

Fast zombies get the blood pumping a lot faster.

 

[scott91575]

I went with fast but not because I prefer them but because I feel in a real zombie apocalypse they are far more likely to occur. Let me explain, in older zombie movies zombies were the dead coming back to life which due to decay made them slower, while in more recent zombie movies I feel that zombie more represent a person who is infected with a virus so they keep most of their human traits like running.

So my vote went to fast zombies as I think a virus infecting people is more likely to occur than the walking dead. Also what I said is a ruff opinion about zombie movies if they're fast or slow depends on the writer.

This really begs the question what kind of zombie are we talking about? If it's the living dead, then they would be slow zombies, be it infection, raising of the dead, etc. causing the actually death of the person and then reanimation. If it's an infection that allows the host to act like an insane person feeding on humans where they are not the undead, then your fast moving zombies could happen. Yet many would not consider that a zombie.

For me, in order for it to be a zombie, the host must die and the corpse would reanimate. When this happens the support systems for the muscles are gone. The muscles are still there, but lack the ability to repair themselves and would be prone to convulsions, cramping, etc. This would lead to slow moving zombies with short lifespans.

So I voted slow because I don't think there can be such a thing as a fast moving zombie. For it to be a zombie the host most have died and the body reanimated. That is up for debate, but that is my belief. Many of today's so called "zombie" movies are not really zombie movies. More like infection/plague movies with some cannibalism mixed in.

 

[Balaxe]

I went with fast but not because I prefer them but because I feel in a real zombie apocalypse they are far more likely to occur. Let me explain, in older zombie movies zombies were the dead coming back to life which due to decay made them slower, while in more recent zombie movies I feel that zombie more represent a person who is infected with a virus so they keep most of their human traits like running.

So my vote went to fast zombies as I think a virus infecting people is more likely to occur than the walking dead. Also what I said is a ruff opinion about zombie movies if they're fast or slow depends on the writer.

This really begs the question what kind of zombie are we talking about? If it's the living dead, then they would be slow zombies, be it infection, raising of the dead, etc. causing the actually death of the person and then reanimation. If it's an infection that allows the host to act like an insane person feeding on humans where they are not the undead, then your fast moving zombies could happen. Yet many would not consider that a zombie.

For me, in order for it to be a zombie, the host must die and the corpse would reanimate. When this happens the support systems for the muscles are gone. The muscles are still there, but lack the ability to repair themselves and would be prone to convulsions, cramping, etc. This would lead to slow moving zombies with short lifespans.

So I voted slow because I don't think there can be such a thing as a fast moving zombie. For it to be a zombie the host most have died and the body reanimated. That is up for debate, but that is my belief. Many of today's so called "zombie" movies are not really zombie movies. More like infection/plague movies with some cannibalism mixed in.

There are hundreds of different ways too look at zombies and their behaviour but like I said it all comes down to the writer of the book/movie/game/ect.

Also I consider both the reanimated dead and canabolistic infected zombies.