Fast or Slow Zombies?

[Mornai]

Originally Posted by watertommyz

See, this is where it gets a little in the preference side. I like to think of zombies as a regression to a more primal, aggressive, and instinctive side rather than just being "dumb."

I tend to think it's sort of like a bacteria or a virus controlling a corpse, so it's far less intelligent than any human is. It can only grasp basic movement and actions like biting that are necessary for them to get food, and nothing else. This would explain their lack of smarts and why they don't learn from mistakes.

[Kaserkin]

Originally Posted by Noname215

The slow zombies are a wonderful metaphor for the anxiety of human mortality and fast zombies are gay.
- Max Brooks

True Dat.

Watch the trailer of the movie inspired by WWZ

[Toasty]

The slow zombies. It reminds me of Jason from Friday the 13th, walking slowly with a knife, no matter how slow, he would get to you eventually. It makes it more creepy, and suspenseful.

[NickPope]

Opening the canisters in the Living Dead movies makes a great Movie,but they did it wrong back then.First one slow zombie,then fast,smart.ect....In some way they did it that way.Remember send more cops?lol

[plaqueconspiracy]

I like Half Life 2 universe zombies.


Most of them are just normal plain boring slow zombies (in blue jeans and white shirts).

But then there are the more mutated zombies that can jump and run around really fast.

And then there are those who carry other infected creatures and is their host. The one that throws those lethal black headcrabs at you.



I think that's a pretty good mix. But mostly I like the regular zombies for movies and cartoons.

[Hudomonkey]

I like slow zombies because Zombie's special ability is outnumbering you

Zombies work by multiplying quickly and eventually killing you one way or another

Fast zombies are overpowered

[trd84]

I like slow zombies. The zombies in The Dead were great, slow and creepy.

[The Fallen]

Depends.

For pure action. Fast.

For a more suspenseful, character driven ZA, slow.

[SeriousScar]

I like slow zombies, being boxed in by them is great for psychological fear. You have more time to realise how screwed your situation is. With fast zombies everything happens to quickly for you to process.

[Sutinen]

For those zombies that only die from brain damage: Slow.
For the "infected human" type of zombies: Fast.

[ColtPeacemaker00]

Originally Posted by NickPope

Opening the canisters in the Living Dead movies makes a great Movie,but they did it wrong back then.First one slow zombie,then fast,smart.ect....In some way they did it that way.Remember send more cops?lol

actually it was "send more paramedics". unless they used the same line and changed it to "cops" later in the flick.

[Rommel49]

Originally Posted by CarScar

Slow zombies are bad enough, having fast zombies would totally annihilate the human race.

Hardly. Zombies, whether fast or slow, are basically still just people without the key thing that actually got us to the top of the food chain in the first place: intelligence and everything that flows from that, e.g. the ability to think, plan, and use tools. Fast ones are just more dangerous (slow shamblers are a joke, actual threat-wise).

They could be as fast as olympic sprinters; it's not going to matter when they can be riddled with holes from hundreds of meters to a couple miles away, and that's just from the stuff that can be carried by a guy on foot. They're totally helpless against things like tanks, aircraft, or artillery (there's a reason they tend to be mysteriously absent in most zombie apocalypse fiction, a standard 155mm shell from modern artillery is guaranteed to kill pretty much everything within 50 meters of where it lands), even stuff like mines would be effective; zombies won't bother avoiding them, and even if a mine doesn't kill them outright, they can't run with no legs.

Civilian casualties would probably be pretty high though.

[Mornai]

Originally Posted by Rommel49

Civilian casualties would probably be pretty high though.

That's all it takes. They don't need intelligence, they don't have to do anything to survive. Their numbers multiply by people simply dying. Even if they can be contained and destroyed in the end, there would be hundreds of millions of casualties. Not only that, but they would become a permanent threat, since everyone would turn when they die even if all of the current zombies were killed(until a cure would be developed or people could adapt to it).

This is all focusing on if it originated walking dead style, of course. Otherwise, they're not too troublesome.

[Saemunder]

I think the slow ones are by far more dangerous. While fast zombies would be a major threat it's always when we think we are the safest that we are at the greatest risk and slow zombies give you the time to relax a little and to show how fragile humanities social connection really is. I think that's what Romero was trying to do, to show how humanity is the monster not the undead horror coming at you.

Story wise both are good, they just need to be used well. I think having both would make for something far more interesting.

The best part of walking dead is the very simple "we are all infected", no matter what you do you can never run away from yourself and all those deaths from the first spread of societal collapse.

[Rommel49]

Originally Posted by Mornai

That's all it takes. They don't need intelligence, they don't have to do anything to survive. Their numbers multiply by people simply dying. Even if they can be contained and destroyed in the end, there would be hundreds of millions of casualties. Not only that, but they would become a permanent threat, since everyone would turn when they die even if all of the current zombies were killed(until a cure would be developed or people could adapt to it).

This is all focusing on if it originated walking dead style, of course. Otherwise, they're not too troublesome.

I mean civilian casualties would probably be pretty high as a result of serious military action or the results of such (e.g. famine from destroyed infrastructure), not the zombies themselves. The vast majority of those poor people either won't be able to come back (soldiers have worn helmets for the past few thousand years for a reason), or won't be able to do much even if they do reanimate.

Zombies that have walk/run up to somebody and bite them are in no way, shape, or form more lethal than artillery bombardment or airstrikes utilized by thinking, intelligent humans. They're too stupid to take cover to avoid incoming fire or every day obstacles and can be lured wherever you want them to go (e.g. prepared free-fire zones or minefields) by simply making enough noise (which heavy weapons or vehicles do in spades).

Their tendency to cluster together makes it even worse. It'd basically like pitting a modern army with all the bells and whistles against a Napoleonic-era block of guys without any weapons, who won't bother to utilize cover, and can't plan. That they can only permanently be put down by brain trauma isn't an issue (as noted previously by the prevalence of helmets in warfare throughout history); fragmentation comes from overhead... modern artillery rounds are typically airburst against squishies and the overpressure/underpressure effects will basically turn a brain to mush inside the skull at the least or tear the limbs right off the torso at the worst.

Like I said, there's a reason these things tend to be absent from the vast majority of ZA fiction; and why pretty much no piece of ZA fiction bothers to even explain its own premise; i.e. show how the apocalypse began in the first place.

[Mornai]

Perhaps, but if it's in the style of an airborne disease that has infected all humans(and they turn on death), that means there will always be more zombies until a cure is obtained. Would we just continue bombarding earth every time someone dies of old age, a car accident, a homicide, a suicide, common diseases, etc.? Plus, in the case of things like car accidents and suicides/murders, the brain can't always be destroyed before reanimation, and those incidents unfortunately happen very often.

I'm not saying they can't be easily killed, but(at least in this ZA style), they wouldn't be permanently extinguished so easily.

[Alesh]

If the zombies are undead - slow. If they are infected but alive then I like them fast.

[BagginsKQ]

Hardly. Zombies, whether fast or slow, are basically still just people without the key thing that actually got us to the top of the food chain in the first place: intelligence and everything that flows from that, e.g. the ability to think, plan, and use tools.

Unless they are true Romero zombies. "slow" but also capable of 'evolving'. That is to say, if one zombie figures out how to 'open' a door, other zombies will learn from that zombies actions. In a monkey see, monkey do kind of way. Zombies in his movies have been using 'tools'/'weapons' starting with blunt objections, since the first movie, but got better at it with each additional movie, until the point some were using machine guns. By Land of the Dead, they were even being sent orders by an alpha zombie. Beyond that, it seems basic zombie is unintelligent, with the occasional one with slightly higher 'intelligence' if you can all it that. Still its more like animal instinct than human level of sapience.

[BagginsKQ]

Hardly. Zombies, whether fast or slow, are basically still just people without the key thing that actually got us to the top of the food chain in the first place: intelligence and everything that flows from that, e.g. the ability to think, plan, and use tools.

Unless they are true Romero zombies. "slow" but also capable of 'evolving'. That is to say, if one zombie figures out how to 'open' a door, other zombies will learn from that zombies actions. In a monkey see, monkey do kind of way. Zombies in his movies have been using 'tools'/'weapons' starting with blunt objections, since the first movie, but got better at it with each additional movie, until the point some were using machine guns. By Land of the Dead, they were even being sent orders by an alpha zombie. Beyond that, it seems basic zombie is unintelligent, with the occasional one with slightly higher 'intelligence' if you can all it that. Still its more like animal instinct than human level of sapience.

[thestalkinghead]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Unless they are true Romero zombies. "slow" but also capable of 'evolving'. That is to say, if one zombie figures out how to 'open' a door, other zombies will learn from that zombies actions. In a monkey see, monkey do kind of way. Zombies in his movies have been using 'tools'/'weapons' starting with blunt objections, since the first movie, but got better at it with each additional movie, until the point some were using machine guns. By Land of the Dead, they were even being sent orders by an alpha zombie. Beyond that, it seems basic zombie is unintelligent, with the occasional one with slightly higher 'intelligence' if you can all it that. Still its more like animal instinct than human level of sapience.

i think the idea of evolving zombies ruins zombies, and just turns them into durable idiots, i think they have to have the same intelligence level of bug or virus, because otherwise they aren't just a hoard of undead, they become individuals that can learn and adapt, that sort of turns them into a whole different kind of villain/enemy