Poll: Slow vs. Fast: The zombie apocalypse revisited... again

[Kouen]

Both are cool in there own rights.

Depends on the Game / Film id spose

 

[Snotnarok]

Why not both? They're both fun in their own right. I think fast caught on because it's a new spin on something that's been around for a long time, and admit it, it's pretty freaking cool.

 

[knight steel]

Hmm i like my zombies to have a wide variety,such as slow zombies then fast zombies and finally realy huge zombies or zombies that spit acid.

 

[SamFancyPants252]

WAW nailed it with the "slow zombie that morphs into fast zombie"
best of both worlds!

 

[SovietX]

Slow zombies for me.

 

[Rakkana]

Slow but very strong up close.

 

[TG MLPDashie]

slow are just plain scary while if there fast are boring. mainly cause fast zombies make loud sounds and are easily spotted while slow ones can sneak up on you a make you crap your pants.

 

[ToxicPiranah]

ah but 24 "Zombies" aren't true zombies.

OT: Slow are scary, because they may not keep up but they will catch up and they are always coming. Always! You hide from them and think your safe but they're always coming, you think you can outsmart them but they slowly but surley get you. Fast are there in your face the whole time, theres no relaxing.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Fast zombies are better suited for action games, while the slow ones are better for survival horror games, Fast are less creepy and more jumpy while the slow ones seem more creepy by them looking human but acting like a drunk man high on crystal meth, who wants to eat you.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Slow ones are scarier.

 

[Dexiro]

I don't get the reasoning behind slow zombies being scarier D:

Surely they're easier to keep an eye on and you can just shoot them most of the time. Fast zombies on the other hand can jump out on you, are harder to aim at and make you panic.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

For me, slow are less scary. I can mock them, and still get away.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I thought that in Dawn of the Dead the zombies were fast...though that might've been the remake.

Either way, I think that fast zombies are scarier, but slow zombies are creepier.

I honestly can't understand how you could die by slow zombies. I mean I know that you could get swarmed, but who would be stupid enough to get swarmed? I would just run away from the city/town whatever. Or drive.

EDIT: On second thought slow can be just as scary, especially in confined and dark places.
Like those ones in Doom 3....ugh.

 

[Doclector]

Slow zombies are definately more scary. I think it's by something I call "the quicksand effect" if you start sinking in quicksand, it's because you didn't watch your step. You know this, and now your last thoughts before sinking into a sloppy grave will be "damn, my own stupidity got me killed". If you back yourself into a corner with slow zombies, it won't be because they were too fast, they gave you plenty of time to think about where you're going. It won't be overwhelming odds. It'll be because you were stupid. And there you will stand, back against a wall, unarmed and outnumbered thinking "i'm gonna be eaten alive, and it's all my fault." That is far scarier to me than simply being too slow.

Also, slow zombies are better at psychological warfare. Sure, a rabid horde of runners cause panic, but imagine instead of getting it done quickly, the dead slowly came towards your home, moaning the endless sorrow of the already dead, beckoning you to join their ranks. They would never stop, thier slow attacks slowly getting through your barricades. The fast ones would break through in seconds, and kill even quicker, but the slow would take days of psychological torture, by which, according to the zombie survival guide, many would take their own lives to end the terrible moaning.

Then, theres the fact that more often than not, fast zombies, from left 4 dead and 28 days later, would not require a headshot. This makes fighting them not only easier, but less traumatic. Imagine being at the front line of yonkers (world war z readers will know of this), seeing tons of artillery and shock and awe strike the horde, and it doing nigh on-nothing to the undead. That is a clear enough psychological message that these creatures are unstoppable.

 

[z121231211]

If you're trapped by fast zombies, it's over fairly quickly.

If you're trapped by slow zombies, you have no choice but to sit and watch them shamble slowly towards you, intent on nothing but your destruction. That's infinitely more horrifying: watching death approach.

That is the only part I 'get', and agree with, about slow zombies being 'scary'.
Otherwise, I'd say slow zombies just aren't hard to kill anymore.

If their anatomy is the same, but their motor skills aren't, slow zombies would be far less of a threat then fast zombies. Both personally, and in terms of a full-scale 'invasion' (Or outbreak, if you will). I mean, I remember seeing the numbers fo casualties in Afghanistan one year that had just over 100 NATO soldiers killed, and well over 1000 insurgent soldiers killed. And those are guys who are running and shooting back, and the majority of NATO deaths were IEDs!

Now imagine an armed force against slow moving, shambling zombies. It would be the closest thing to the analogy 'fish in a barrel' without including fish, or barrels. They would be destroyed. Fast zombies come out of nowhere, and they run quick. Slow zombies? Slow.

So in an urban setting where an outbreak occurs, fast zombies would have a massive edge over slow zombies in terms of continued and prolonged survival against a military force. Slow zombies would kill, no doubt, but make the outbreak a world-wide catastrophe? Naah. It's be a town-wide problem, but it would be squashed much faster.

So, in the end, I'd say fast zombies are scarier.
For me, at least.

I never thought of horror as "Could my military force take this out?" Try being in the middle of no where, armed with only what you can find in a typical shed. You're fucked either way, it's just over quicker with fast zombies.

 

[padz]

If you're trapped by fast zombies, it's over fairly quickly.

If you're trapped by slow zombies, you have no choice but to sit and watch them shamble slowly towards you, intent on nothing but your destruction. That's infinitely more horrifying: watching death approach.

That is the only part I 'get', and agree with, about slow zombies being 'scary'.
Otherwise, I'd say slow zombies just aren't hard to kill anymore.

If their anatomy is the same, but their motor skills aren't, slow zombies would be far less of a threat then fast zombies. Both personally, and in terms of a full-scale 'invasion' (Or outbreak, if you will). I mean, I remember seeing the numbers fo casualties in Afghanistan one year that had just over 100 NATO soldiers killed, and well over 1000 insurgent soldiers killed. And those are guys who are running and shooting back, and the majority of NATO deaths were IEDs!

Now imagine an armed force against slow moving, shambling zombies. It would be the closest thing to the analogy 'fish in a barrel' without including fish, or barrels. They would be destroyed. Fast zombies come out of nowhere, and they run quick. Slow zombies? Slow.

So in an urban setting where an outbreak occurs, fast zombies would have a massive edge over slow zombies in terms of continued and prolonged survival against a military force. Slow zombies would kill, no doubt, but make the outbreak a world-wide catastrophe? Naah. It's be a town-wide problem, but it would be squashed much faster.

So, in the end, I'd say fast zombies are scarier.
For me, at least.

Have you read Max Brroks Zombie survival guide? If Zombies were as he describes, modern day military would be faily useless. For a start, the general fact of Zombies is that their brain needs to be destroyed. All military I know of are trained to shoot for centre mass ie. the chest. This is mainly because if your shot strays from where you aim it has more area around the centre mass to hit like the limbs or head. Actually aiming and getting a headshot with even a rifle that has been zeroed to your own sight from more than 50m is extremely hard without extensive training.
Point i'm making, if the zombie apocolypse comes: We're all screwed!

 

[murlo360]

Well i belive that the Fast zombies are just a marketing techniqe to get more movie veiws, you know to mix things up a little? i prefer fast zombies.

 

[Sinbeans]

I don't know about the movie industry transition from slow zombie to fast. But for the gaming industry the change makes sense. Take for instance the Resident Evil games; bad camera, controls, and limited resources are part of the scare factor. As the PC you're slow and unwieldy, and most of your enemies are just as slow but tend to jump out of nowhere (or seem to due to the horrible camera.)

Then there's L4D. With a fast-paced first person shooter, slow zombies would just be boring.

Personally, I like both versions, and it's fun to see what boss infected they come up with (like special infected in L4D or the RE4 Iron Maiden.)