Poll: Zombies: Slow or Fast?

[Xanadu84]

Fast. Oh yeah, fast zombies arn't realistic, its not realistic...they are dead things that are still moving. Realistic has ceased to be an issue here. A fast zombie reminds you more of what the zombie used to be. A fast zombie still seems almost human, and that is psychologically terrifying. A slow zombie is target practice, a lump of generic movie monster flesh. And no matter how ingenious a filmmaker is with there zombie combat, eventually the idea of, "Open space, fire axe, and walk backwards" is going to break suspension of disbelief. Its too easy to think of all the solutions to a zombie outbreak there actually are when zombies are slow.

I'm not saying that slow zombies must be bad, or even that they shouldn't be the focus of some stories, but there is a damn good reason why Fast zombies gained such a strong foothold so quickly. Also, in games, it is an even split: Interactivity makes slow zombies just cause a different style of gameplay then fast.

 

[Crazy]

I prefer the dead one, but I'll go with the slow one. Easier to avoid.

 

[TK421]

Slow. It's in The Guide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zombie_Survival_Guide]. What other evidence could you possible want?
[small]Seriously, if you can think of any other definitive guides, pm me or quote this or something.[/small]

 

[RatRace123]

Slow, I just think they're more effective. With the fast zombies, it's like being chased by a predatory animal, you know they're gonna get you, and you know you can't out run them.

With slow zombies, you can easily outrun them, and you think that you can get away and be safe, but sooner or later they and about a million of their friends will find you. When they find you, they will swarm on you and you'll be cowering in the corner, as one by one, the zombie horde enters the room, slowly but surely.
And it's the sense of "OK, I outran them, I'll be safe" that makes it all the more terrifying when you ultimately aren't.

 

[Owen Robertson]

From a sheerly scientific standpoint (as scientifically accurate as zombies get anyways) anything that takes 24+ hrs to reanimate would suffer from Rigor Mortis. Decay would also set in, or at least gangrene if they're fast but have open wounds. In games and movies though, it's nice to have a mix. Unless we go old school and not have random African/Spanish peasants dole out Pistol ammo like its candy on Holloween.

 

[Chancie]

Slow. Zombies are just supposed to be mindless staggering things, not pro-athletes.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I prefer my zombies to be slow, mostly because it's what I grew up on.

I think fast zombies are a little weird and out of place since....well....they're dead and I doubt they have the ability to run very fast, stumbling very fast yes, but not running.

Besides, it's hard to aim the shotgun when they're moving too fast.

 

[Keith Reedy]

Slow, I just think they're more effective. With the fast zombies, it's like being chased by a predatory animal, you know they're gonna get you, and you know you can't out run them.

With slow zombies, you can easily outrun them, and you think that you can get away and be safe, but sooner or later they and about a million of their friends will find you. When they find you, they will swarm on you and you'll be cowering in the corner, as one by one, the zombie horde enters the room, slowly but surely.
And it's the sense of "OK, I outran them, I'll be safe" that makes it all the more terrifying when you ultimately aren't.

Actually you can get away and in the event of an apocalypse were most of the population is turned relatively quickly you won't be on the run indefinitely as the zombies will rot away and cease to be a threat, especially if you live in an area that is not heavily populated, like were I live you'd never see more than say ten zombies together. The biggest threat in such a situation is contracting the virus anyway.

 

[dagens24]

My take on this is that a zombie should get slower the longer it's been dead. As soon as a living human turns their blood would still be able to flow, but as time went on it would coagulate leading to slower zombies.

 

[zehydra]

Fast, predators are always fast, it only makes sense for zombies to predator-like

 

[smurf_you]

I prefer slow, mostly because if it ever happened in real life, it would be SO much easier for me to get away from them! (I don't move very fast >.>)

 

[Robert Sanders]

Real talk: How is the plague going to spread when the creature coming for you move as slow as your granny on her walker? It makes sense to have newly infected zombies running so they can go from victim to victim more quickly. Have the older ones shamble around like mummies.

 

[Robert Sanders]

Now, personally, I feel that if they are running, then they should be referred to as "infected" (like in 28 Days/Weeks Later, L4D series, Dead Island) but some people disagree.

Uhhh, so the zombies in Return of the Living Dead are "infected," despite the fact we readily see them rise from the grave and re-animated? Okay... I get the sense you've never seen RotLD before, which is sort of ironic since you are doing the whole "I liked them before they were cool herp a derp!" nonsense...

Anyways, both are fine. I find it unbelievable that there are people out there who don't see the merits in both 'styles' of zombies. Is it supposed to be edgy? Cool? I don't fucking get it.

Hipsters say they prefer slow zombies, but their being ironic.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Fast infected zombies annoy me a bit. Mainly because they're used so much nowadays. It's not that they're bad but...well, they're not as psychologically nerve-wracking. If you're being chased by infected zombies well you know you need to run so you just run, in any direction if necessary.
Slow zombies however...the danger creeps up on you and you don't even know it. The longer you wait trying to look for an escape route, the more you get surrounded. Until suddenly without even realizing it, there is no escape route. A slow but constant pressure until you break. Forces you to think faster rather than just react faster.
Example: headcrab zombies are much scarier than L4D infected

 

[Cazza]

Slow for zombies. Fast for infected. I don't care which one they choose. It's just a setting. If the "zombies" are fast I don't go all up in arms.

 

[Astoria]

Yeah I agree with you. Pretty much all zombies are 'infected' now not actual zombies. Fast zombies are a lot scarier in my opinion because they combine their speed with their numbers. They make less sense though because shouldn't they turn on each other too?

 

[Keith Reedy]

Yeah I agree with you. Pretty much all zombies are 'infected' now not actual zombies. Fast zombies are a lot scarier in my opinion because they combine their speed with their numbers. They make less sense though because shouldn't they turn on each other too?

I suppose that depends on how whatever infected them behaves and alters the person

 

[teknoarcanist]

Whichever makes it easier for the writer to convey the human drama.

Usually the slow zombies are better suited to this, because you can treat them as the background crisis, like you might a hurricane or any other movie disaster.

It's not impossible with fast zombies though. 28 Days Later had that great mechanic of the 'infected' turning in the span of about 30 seconds. The result being that, as soon as someone gets a little blood in their face, the shit hits the fan, and everything you think you know about the character relationships up to that point is jarringly and immediately put to the test.

 

[LogicArmour]

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.

 

[Zorg Machine]

I follow the teachings of Max Brooks. read Zombie survival guide for a full explanation on the real zombies.