I prefer my zombies slow. Not at a snails pace, just regular walking speed. To compensate they're impervious to anything short of a headshot, decapitation or complete incineration.
Poll: Zombies: Slow or Fast?
- Thread starter WeAreStevo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I follow the teachings of Max Brooks. read Zombie survival guide for a full explanation on the real zombies.
LIke I said it depends on how it affects them another infected may be changed to give of a scent that keeps other infected from attacking them while inciting attacks and rage against the non-infectedAstoria said:
The "ghouls" of Night of the Living Dead are arguably even more different than slow zombies today. They could use rudimentary tools - I remember a scene with a zombie picking up a stone and the little girl zombie uses a trowel as a weapon. Also, they were afraid of fire.
Well, fast zombies are undoubtedly more difficult to deal with than the slower ones, if all other things are equal.
Shaun of the Dead Zombies = Easy Mode
Zombieland Zombies = Hard Mode
I enjoy a challenge...so I prefer the faster zombies. After all, what fun is it with an enemy whose ONLY viable tactic is 'outnumber the survivors a thousand to one'?
Personally, I don't think 'fast' is enough. I'd like to see cyborg super-zombies with jetpacks and plasma cannons built into their arms.
Shaun of the Dead Zombies = Easy Mode
Zombieland Zombies = Hard Mode
I enjoy a challenge...so I prefer the faster zombies. After all, what fun is it with an enemy whose ONLY viable tactic is 'outnumber the survivors a thousand to one'?
Personally, I don't think 'fast' is enough. I'd like to see cyborg super-zombies with jetpacks and plasma cannons built into their arms.
Depends on how they turn. If they die and are brought back in minutes (ala Resident Evil), make them fast. If there's some mystical force raising the dead like puppets, by all means make them slow.
Part of my reasoning is the early stages of the zombie infestation. First zombie? Only so much it can do. Slow zombies are only effective en masse. Take away that advantage and they lack power. 5-6 shamblers are easily dealt with by local forces. Fast zombies in the early stages are harder to deal with, and can escalate the situation faster than people can respond. Of course if you start off raising a cemetary then the point is moot, as you start off with a small zombie militia to overwhelm and/or divide and conquer.
Part of my reasoning is the early stages of the zombie infestation. First zombie? Only so much it can do. Slow zombies are only effective en masse. Take away that advantage and they lack power. 5-6 shamblers are easily dealt with by local forces. Fast zombies in the early stages are harder to deal with, and can escalate the situation faster than people can respond. Of course if you start off raising a cemetary then the point is moot, as you start off with a small zombie militia to overwhelm and/or divide and conquer.
I have a small point about this scene, if the cops fired on the zombies lower parts(legs) the bullets would either break the leg bones or shred enough muscle to stop the zombie from walking and since they're slow anyway they will have ample time to do this and can then calmly finish off the undead with headshotz, the lack of speed simply allows for better tactics on the surviving sideTuesday Night Fever said:
depends on how long they have been dead. If the zombie contagion got them while they still lived it could make them dead and they're body still be fresh flexible and strong allowing them to runBrinnmilo said:
As with every other question like this, it depends. The original RE's would be awful with running zombies. But L4D needs the runners to keep tension up.
Pff...slow zombies. They were cool before they were cool and then overused and then nothing and then runners arrived and then they were overused again with out becoming cool.
Except in Video games, because I can never get enough of finding different ways to kill zombies. So...more zombie games, less zombie movies. More good movies, less comic book adaptions which somehow get more attention than original films not based on anything.
Except in Video games, because I can never get enough of finding different ways to kill zombies. So...more zombie games, less zombie movies. More good movies, less comic book adaptions which somehow get more attention than original films not based on anything.
Slow but in ridiculous amounts because when I die in a horde of zombies I want to be out of ammo helpless and trapped in a corner stabbing to my last breath. Zombies should make survival hard rather then make death easy.
Well it depends on what happens to the brain. I don't think there is any definitive soft science to go either way on the topic but if they are the "undead" then that means they have suffered brain death, which would stop all movement, yet they've been re-animated by something. So I guess it depends how much brain activity being a zombie gives you.Keith Reedy said:
Makes sense if the zombification does prevent or death by zombification not cause damage to the motor sections of the brain then they could runBrinnmilo said:
Fast then slow. It makes sense, at first zombies would run and quite fast, as they're like people crazy on meth and don't feel any pain. But inevitably they strain and tear muscles or tip and break bone, slowing them.
Unless they're Crossed, then everyones screwed.
Unless they're Crossed, then everyones screwed.
Fast zombies are an actual threat. I dont see how slow zombies would ever be a danger if you kept moving and never let yourself get surrounded.