Poll: Fast Zombies or Slow Zombies?

[HardRockSamurai]

[small]This Thread has been Search Bar Approved..........honest..........[/small][hr]​

I just finished watching MovieBob's review of Zombieland (which sounds good by the way) and it got me thinking about zombies in general.

Over time, there's only one significant change that's been made to zombies: the ability to run like an Olympian.

Spoiler: Running Zombies?

This change has been debated among zombie movie enthusiasts for ages. Zombies began as slow-moving, rotting corpses, so naturally, some people felt that giving them the ability to run simply ruined the concept of a zombie in general.

My question is, which do you like better? The classic, stumbling, slow-moving zombies? or the new and improved, marathon-running zombies?

Spoiler: Zombie Classic

or

Spoiler: Zombie 2.0

 

[Internet Kraken]

Slow zombies.

Fast zombies can kill you easily. With slow zombies you at least have a chance to survive. Most of the time if someone gets killed by slow zombies it's because of their own mistakes, and I think that's more interesting.

Though I really don't like zombies that much. Mutants are more interesting.

 

[Hexadecimal]

Fast zombies offer more of a challenge.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Slow Zombies.

I don't really understand how a zombie can sprint ala "Dawn of the Dead"

 

[Radeonx]

I thought, at first, you said "Fat" zombies.

OT: I prefer slow zombies, because fast zombies can mutilate you in seconds. There's really no point at trying, if they are fast.

 

[Hoppetussa]

I prefer slow zombies. In Diary of the Dead, the zombies were jumping all over place like they were fucking athletics.

 

[Christemo]

slow zombies are more classy, and more awesome.


but seriously, samurai, i remember a thread or 2 about this in the past.

 

[Kajt]

I prefer the slow, shambling ones. They seem more brainless than the fast ones.

 

[Jaqen Hghar]

Zombies aren't zombies if they can think, run or use weapons of any kind. Other than a chainsaw duct-taped to their hands.

I use the Zombie Survival Guide as a... guide when it comes to what a zombie is or isn't. That book is brilliant, and made zombies seem almost real.
Zombies are also more scary when slow. Yeah, a fast zombie can kill you faster, but the psychological terror of a vast shambling horde is so much more terrifying.
But that's just me.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I prefer slow zombies. They create a better atmosphere in my opinion. Slow, inevitable doom.

 

[ae86gamer]

Slow zombies. Less chance of me getting eaten alive.

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

Slow zombies, fast zombies defeat the point of the zombie horde, they'll just eat yer brains too quick.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

While I prefer the classic slow shambling zombies, both have their merits depending on the story that is being told. I'm OK with either, so long as a good director is at the helm.

 

[Just_Mike]

Well for horror movies the fast zombies or ZOOMBIES as I call them are the way to go because they provide a greater sense of danger than the slow zombies, but in a real life situation I have to go with the slow zombies

 

[similar.squirrel]

I get the impression that fast zombies aren't usually reanimated corpses. Just..Infected with something or other. Human rabies/rage-virus/Uroburos.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I find that slow zombies are part of the overarching theme of a zombie flick. Running zombies just feel like another random monster that happens to outnumber you.

Slow zombies offer something that fast zombies don't. Dread. See the fast ones make your adrenaline spike and you move your ass to compensate. Slow Zombies let you think, let that adrenaline bleed off and you realize the futility of it all.

Fast zombies are sudden death, which is fine and I can appreciate them for that. However, slow zombies are the slow kill. They are psychological torture. Run forever and it still doesn't matter. The rabbit can't run forever and then the tortoise will tear your skin off while you muster the energy to scream in your exhaustion.

So yea, it depends on what kind of horror you want. Despair or shock tactics, both are valid but I prefer old school dread. I never got nightmares from the fast zombies but I did from the slow dread of shambling death since it meant futility.

 

[Uncompetative]

You can have both in Halo 3's Infection game type. However, I think it is only fair if:

- Slow Zombies take a lot of damage and can only be killed with a headshot. Shotguns only.
- Fast Zombies are almost one-hit kill, but there are a ton of them. The low-gravity tweak is overdone in my opinion. Pistols only.

The trick is to only give you limited ammunition and no weapons on the map - so you have to rely on picking up weapons from fallen comrades. There isn't a whole lot of point having vehicles, unless you start each game with multiple zombies - otherwise it is too hard for the player "in pursuit" and they just quit. Informal 'rules' are never consistently enforced and are a waste of everyone's time.

However, I guess other people have their own tastes and opinions on this matter.

By the way, I admired Left 4 Dead and would conclude that the main thing was:

Lots of Zombies.

It is always nice if a slow zombie gets up again after being shot in the chest with enough of a delay to catch you out. A rhythm of attack waves is worth having too. I don't know if Halo's Custom Games lets you apply the Respawn as Team attribute to the Infected, I may do...

 

[silasbufu]

if anyone prefers fast ones then I guess you have a death wish?

 

[LockHeart]

Slowness - more chance to escape and not be eaten.

 

[open trap]

well slow zombies increase my chances of survivability and are more fun to kill, so ya slow fatys for me