Zombies vs. Infected
- Thread starter azncutthroat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The actual answer is because IRL, there is a possibility of a 'zombie' apocalypse. Scientists all over the world have confirmed the existence of natural viruses similar to the T-Virus or those in 28 Days Later, I Am Legend, and so on. Therefore the most likely scenario is 'Infected' rather than the traditional 'Zombie'. IRL, there is a small chance that a 'zombie apocalypse' may occur so the fictional trend is simply keeping up with the real life possibilities. Simple as that.
EDIT: There is no possible way to dispute this, BTW, since this is what has been repeatedly confirmed by biologists and other scientists for at least the past decade, and is grounded therefore in fact. So this is a true [/thread] answer, anyone posting contradictory stuff after this is just an ignorant idiot. I'm sorry, but it's true.
EDIT: There is no possible way to dispute this, BTW, since this is what has been repeatedly confirmed by biologists and other scientists for at least the past decade, and is grounded therefore in fact. So this is a true [/thread] answer, anyone posting contradictory stuff after this is just an ignorant idiot. I'm sorry, but it's true.
This.mangus said:
Zombies have a long history of being very slow and very stupid. Instead of saying "Fast zombie that can actually manage to move over somewhat complicated terrain," a new term was born. Infected.
infected=infected humans zombies=people that have been infected and is in a later form.azncutthroat said:
George Romeo zombies are more like infected, because they don't like have any speciality.
L4D zombies have like specialities. Infected just like move around groaning.
So no biggie.
It's also the fact that you NEVER call them zombies in a zombie movie. Infected is still bad, but more forgivable.
That was my one gripe with Left 4 Dead. Zoey called them zombies. Damn her. Damn her, I say.
That was my one gripe with Left 4 Dead. Zoey called them zombies. Damn her. Damn her, I say.
Source? Give me one, and I shall be sated.Trivun said:
Well that's because most modern zombies are technically not zombies.
A zombie is the living dead. Organic matter that was once decaying but has been reanimated.
Infected are just people who have a virus that makes them act like zombies. They were never dead, so they are not actually zombies.
So the last game I played that had actual zombies in it was Plants vs. Zombies...
A zombie is the living dead. Organic matter that was once decaying but has been reanimated.
Infected are just people who have a virus that makes them act like zombies. They were never dead, so they are not actually zombies.
So the last game I played that had actual zombies in it was Plants vs. Zombies...
I had an argument with someone over this, who thought the "night hunters" were supposed to be zombies... and the thing is, in the movie version, they're pretty damn easy to confuse with zombies. In the short story, they were unquestionably vampires.Pumpkin_Eater said:
It's funny - the alternate names people use for these creatures - if something like a vampire or a zombie was all "up in my grill" I wouldn't shout "infected!" or "night hunter!" I'd shout "zombies!" or "vampires!" It just sounds clunky to me when they force a different name onto something I'm familiar with. Like, calling people with genetic super powers something other than "mutants" in a non-Marvel comic - or singing "he's a jolly good fellow" instead of "happy birthday."
"Infected" are the "he's a jolly good fellow" version of zombies.
People are obsessed with political correctness. The switch from "zombies" to "infected" was inevitable right from the start.
I'm going to nitpick some more and point out that RE 4's enemies were not zombies, they were, for lack an English word, Plagatas. Their bodies were being controlled and sometimes altered by a parasite and they retained enough intelligence to follow orders, use weapons, even talk. Zombies are commonly thought of as reanimated bodies without souls, certainly without intelligence, making them distinctly different from the plagatas.
Best is in the eye of the beholder, but I'll grant that RE 4 is probably the most popular zombie type game.jbauer8908 said:
On another note, L4D is kind of on the fence here. Although they typically say infected, the enemies are also referred to as zombies, both in achievement titles (ie Zombie Genocidist) and in some of the survivors' conversations (ie the No Mercy elevator). What do we make of that?
Well, if you say so dear. I could ask for mutually supporting evidence from university or medical websites, but then I'd be an ignorant idiot, so I'll do the scientific thing and take your word for it, Mr, ah... ...sorry, who are you and what are your credentials again?Trivun said:
People use different words to describe the same thing all the time, especially when that thing is the enemy. Think of the various racial slurs we have come up for Germans, Japanese, and now Arabs when we taught to see them as the enemy. It is a mark of a good writer to catch on to this trend when penning a zombie apocalypse story.
In world war Z the various characters refer to the zombies as: Ghouls, Walking dead, G's, Zombies, and Zed depending on their nationality or personal preference. All that matters is that the people around you know what you mean when you start shouting. "The ____ are coming through the windows!"
In world war Z the various characters refer to the zombies as: Ghouls, Walking dead, G's, Zombies, and Zed depending on their nationality or personal preference. All that matters is that the people around you know what you mean when you start shouting. "The ____ are coming through the windows!"
Hey, I never said that I was a scientist or anything. I was reporting what many different scientists have deduced, and as it happens there are such things in nature (an example is described here, it only takes a slight mutation in the virus itself to cause zombie-like effects. So there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis )MiserableOldGit said:
Yeah. You lose, mate.
I lose? What do I lose? I dont remember entering into a competition. More to the point, what have you won? Anyway, I didnt suggest you were a scientist, merely an arrogant berk. At least you threw a link on (admitedly, one to Wikipedia, that glorious fount of all knowledge, but its more than I expected), which was what I implied I'd like to see, so the way I see it, I won. What did I win, by the way? Incidentaly you may want to click on your own link and ACTUALLY BLOODY READ IT..heres a quote for you...Trivun said:
The evidence for behavioral effects on humans is relatively weak (see a collection of research papers at http://natur.cuni.cz/flegr/publ.php).[citation needed] No prospective research has been done on the topic, e.g., testing people before and after infection to ensure that the proposed behavior arises only afterwards. Although some researchers have found potentially important associations with toxoplasma, the causal relationship, if any, is unknown, i.e., it is possible that these associations merely reflect factors that predispose certain types of people to infection.
Not quite the incontrovertable evidence you suggested then- more of a possibility lacking mutualy supporting evidence (there I go with that phrase again) I'll leave the downpayment on that shotgun till later on, I think...
PS-feel free to respond however you wish, but for the love of God, dont call me mate. Its trite and innacurate.
