Old zombies or new 'running' zombies?

orifice

New member
Nov 18, 2008
414
0
0
The old shuffling ones. They seem to be more'realistic' (A walking corpse should not be moving too fast because of degradation and being dead!)
 

MrGFunk

New member
Oct 29, 2008
1,350
0
0
Limasol said:
They aren't technically Zombies, they're most often "infected" but are called Zombies out of habit.
Exactly, the point of zombies is
DannyDamage said:
The slow, groaning, steadily bleeding, last remaining bit of humanity is left screaming in pain.....zombies.

Fast zombies aren't really zombies
They're both scary, but the hope you feel until you're inevitably overcome makes Zombies worse. 'Infected' just make you wanna kill yourself.
 

Joos

Golden pantaloon.
Dec 19, 2007
662
0
0
Gen Y requires instant gratification. Can I have my brains NOW please?
 

Bagaloo

New member
Sep 17, 2008
788
0
0
Why can't there be a mix, surely this would be the most 'realistic' (I use the term loosely, we are talking about zombies after all).

Why is it in games and films that either they all move fast or they all move slow?
It just seems to me that obviously they would all move at an individual pace because they would all be sporting different injuries which would impair movement, why would a zombie that has two fully functional legs be restricted to a slow shamble?
In my mind if it were realistic it would be lurching as fast as it could to try and get some din dins :p
 

GrimRox

New member
Feb 22, 2008
189
0
0
I like the resident evil remake sort of thing where you had the traditional slow mover but after death have the ability to mutate into a scarier, stronger, faster zombie.
 

Hookman

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,328
0
0
The slow zombies of course. They might be as slow as a mouldy lemon but they will still find a way to rip apart anyone they stumble across. The new zombies arent even real zombies anymore. They are screeching,running,virus-infected retards to put it simply.
 

Khadath

New member
Sep 10, 2008
89
0
0
The slow stumbling type(although they really should walk at a decent pace) are so much better the give a better sense of impending doom, like a never ending horde marching relentlessly after your flesh and you get a chance to look into the hollow lifeless eyes of a former loved one as they come after your juicy brain meats.

Besides the 28 days later kind really oughta be put down by a sudden flight of stairs like in front of one of those old Catholic churches, their so distracted by the buffet before them they'll never see em coming, run!run!run!trip,splat, one less infected to worry about:D
 

feralfenix

New member
Nov 25, 2008
42
0
0
slow zombies are better for building tension and atmosphere, the whole point is that you can escape them for a while, but eventually they'll surround you, and then its just a matter of time...
 

Varchld

is drunk and disorderly.
Nov 8, 2008
446
0
0
Zombies can move about 30 feet every 6 seconds, which is kinda fast.

Either is fine so long as it fits the movie/game/whatever.
Slow shambling zombies shouldn't be left behind by more modern instalments, but there is room to share.

Zombie purists are a bit silly. I read a post that someone wasn't going to get L4D because they weren't true zombies. Sure whatever, but it was a pretty long post/whinge.
By all means have your preference but geez, just be happy that zombie lore hasn't been as raped as vampires have.
 

WolfLordAndy

New member
Sep 19, 2008
776
0
0
Sewblon said:
runtheplacered said:
Sewblon said:
We need flying zombies so that hiding on roofs wouldn't work.
Until you starve to death?
I mean't that if people tried to hide on roofs the flying zombies could fly up to them.(arrogant snort)
Well... some zombies can climb... they'd come up the outside of the building?

Best answer to flying zombies would be undead animals though. Image a flock of zombie pigions or seaguls!!

I prefer inevitable slow zombies, that tend to break into a job when they get within 20 feet or so. Adds more tension to movies/games, rather then fast zombies that tend to be more humans with a weird virus/disease then actual zombies. (I am Legend for example)

Also, surely it depends on man-made or magical zombies? As magical zombies keep going even after dismemberment (single hands crawling towards you, or headless corpses, etc) whereas the biological ones are all about breaking the spine/removing the head.
 

KaZZaP

New member
Aug 7, 2008
868
0
0
Not even a choice lets see zombies that you can briskly jog away from or ones that are truley terrifying, actually I pick the L4D zombies which I guess can run but they got grabber tounges and shit like that.
 

anNIALLator

New member
Jul 24, 2008
542
0
0
Fast zombies, definetly. They make a better movie and slow zombies just seem boring in comparison. However, when the zombie apocalypse does happen, I hope it'll be slow zombies. If I can escape by walking quickly then I might survive. Unfortunately, I think the 28 Days Later scenario is the most likely.
 

Matt.

New member
Nov 20, 2008
4
0
0
Fast zombies do seem to the the most likely to happen, but are they then realy zombies. I think slow zombies are more true to the 're-animated dead' idea.
 

Marioninja1

New member
Jun 17, 2008
57
0
0
I like both, so why is there no Movies mixing them? I mean you get attacked by slow zombies then...BAM! fast Zombies AND slow zombies on all sides, and you literally get ripped to pieces
 

M0tty

New member
Aug 2, 2008
24
0
0
Why not a mix?
I just get filled with terror in HL2 when i've got a bunch or zombies shambling towards me, and then i hear a fast zombie howl and I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS.
 

Madshaw

New member
Jun 18, 2008
670
0
0
I think it would be best too have zombies that will be slow and shuffleing, until they get a good meal, then they would be running, sprinting and tearing your face off, untill they need 2 feed again in which case they are slow