The standard "infection comes from bites, slow & mindless" zombies would never get off the ground. They might kill a few people, but, in the (paraphrased) words of Cracked, "their main source of food is also their biggest predator and only source of reproduction. It would be like fighting a lion every time you wanted to make a sandwich or have sex."The Crazy Legs said:Hmm... Yahtzee, you have a point. In order for there to be a zombie apocalypse, there has to be dead people... And if we're all survivors, then it's really not an apocalypse... In other words... Anyone want to go get ice cream later today? Make sure not to bring your cures for zombie-ism or bulletproof vests! Because... I'm... allergic to bulletproof vests? (Is that a good excuse? ...Yeah, it is)
Also, this just occurred to me: if zombies actually could happen, what are the odds that they would be able to kill everyone? I mean, really. We all know how to kill them. Fill them with bullets, aim for the head, and if that doesn't work, get out a chainsaw and cut off their limbs. (Yeah, a Dead Space reference, get over it) I mean, if I remember right, the only reason the zombies overran everything in the Walking Dead was because zombie fiction never existed in their world, and the survivors didn't have a cross-reference guide as to how to kill zombies. That makes sense. If they do Call of Duty: Zombies in a modern setting next, I'm going to call bullshit on that because (as of 2005) EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TO KILL ZOMBIES! Hell, even a crazy scientist guy (Mr. Freeman) with a crowbar and a weird... gun... thing... And.. that weird suit of SPACE ARMOR!!!
Anyways, the zombie apocalypse never really made sense to me for those reasons listed above. And if I'm wrong about all that I said, I'm sorry, I don't play Call of Duty or Half-Life, and I don't watch the Walking Dead (that often), so I probably made mistakes with my logic. My bad, but I think you get my point.
there is a promissing game with slow zombies in the making.Yahtzee Croshaw said:Zombie conventions have been changed by recent videogames and movies.
This may be partly because zombies, especially video game ones, kinda need more than one kind of attack if you want the protagonist to be injured without necessarily being infected.
Incubation period is key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_periodYahtzee Croshaw said:Somehow I doubt it'd work like it did at the start of the Dawn of the Dead remake when the one lady comes out of her house after one night indoors and finds that her pleasant suburban neighborhood has turned into downtown Baghdad.
Don't forget the Only-When-In-Sight-Zombie (aka "Plot Convenience Zombie")!Yahtzee said:I always thought the idea of zombies, one of their scary aspects, is that they're not the people they used to be, they're just the reanimated flesh with no personality or emotion. I'm pretty sure anger is an emotion, guys. Or is this going to turn into one of those 'they're not zombies, they're infected' arguments?
in a traditional virus infection the virus will die along with the host with zombies it just becomes another vector.Atmos Duality said:See, infections that spread too quickly ultimately flare out and die because they run out of hosts. Even in the opening shot to explain the source of the plot, they show that it acts entirely too quickly to be sustainable.
Exactly my thoughts as well - nothing about the origins of zombies in Voodoo lore. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie]Zachary Amaranth said:Yahtzee got the origins of the zombie wrong, which to me puts a bit of a damper on an article that talks about the evolution of the zombie myth. It's also kind of ironic, when you consider he starts talking about the distortion of myths.