Walking or Running Zombies? debate

As the title says Walking or Running zombies

which is scarier, easier and fun
a little debate on which is your fave
and your reasons why

mine would be running alot scarier and it would be more intense

Mass zombies or enclosed, narrow (e.g. dead-ends, barricades, narrow paths, foggy environment) spaces - slow zombies.
Diverse surroundings and rapid progression - fast zombies.

Fast zombies are definitely more of a threat.

andrew wrote:Fast zombies are definitely more of a threat.

This is natural - superior agility & reflexes - but would you rather have 10 fast zombies or 100 slow zombies?

Well, I think they both remain an equal threat.

Slow zombies, lurk around, easy to kill, but if under-estimated, become a real threat.

Fast zombies, also lurk until they are alerted, difficult to kill, but, are probably extremely clumsy, such as chasing you down stairs, off a building etc.

Really, I would rather fast zombies, probably keep you in shape anyway.

Realistically I would want slow zombies, because I actually want to survive.

In a video game, fast zombies. More fun

If you aren't already in shape when a fast zombie apocalypse breaks out, you won't live long enough to get in shape

andrew wrote:Realistically I would want slow zombies, because I actually want to survive.

In a video game, fast zombies. More fun

If you aren't already in shape when a fast zombie apocalypse breaks out, you won't live long enough to get in shape

I prefer the suspense of shuffling zombie whilst I'm cornered, low on ammo, and aware their deathly embrace is slowly approaching in determination. There's time to think as well, tactically or with the form of, 'OH SHIT, OH SHIT'. It's creeping demise without dramatic, rapid action: concluding combat spontaneously as the emptying of your rifle chamber.

The pressure of being endangered and disadvantaged as the survivor-- who is not an specialist soldier or reckless, adrenaline-rushed hillbilly-- is daunting for the realism of true confrontation: in-your-face risk, thoughtless action afforded no second chance. The pace is designed for slow zombies to be a close threat, scary as they are deadly if ever near you.

'Oh god, it's becoming closer.'

Scenarios with slow zombies are dependent on the atmosphere, ammo, weapons, and environment, of course, or it'd be straightforward to:

1 - Climb onto a rock and laugh. (Solution: Architecture that doesn't bestow these opportunities to be safe)
2 - Blow them apart with instant kills whilst standing still. (Solution: No overpowered weapons, martial art abilities, or scarce ammo: fomenting insecurities with offense)
3 - Dodge their attacks to proceed. (Solution: Limited mobility (i.e. no movement whilst aiming) or narrow corridors (interiors force players to approach enemies closely)

The slow zombies are an equal threat to fast zombies for the balance incorporated, in my opinion, and I prefer the different gameplay related to the slower variation of zombies.

ApocalypseVVolf. wrote:

andrew wrote:Realistically I would want slow zombies, because I actually want to survive.

In a video game, fast zombies. More fun

If you aren't already in shape when a fast zombie apocalypse breaks out, you won't live long enough to get in shape

keep you in shape anyway.

ACTION JUNKIES!

Joking, the thrill of a chase can be awesome.

For anything outside a video game, slow zombies. Fast Zombies are needed in most zombie-games to keep things from getting boring.

This has always been a question for me but I've come to the conclusion Less decomposed the faster they are. The first few weeks of infection would be hell the latter still dangerous but not as dangerous as the initial outbreak.

i think id like a mixture of jogging zombies and slow zombies of course more slow zombies i llike this mostly because you have the fast one to get rid of first but you also have to worry about a huge crowd getting closer

fast zombies obviously, there more faster and if theres a poop load of them, it'll be easier for them to get u then if they were slow, but it would be hell of a lot funner if they were slow because u could just run around town with a bunch of ppl having a good time and not really have to worry about them swarming u cause all you would have to do is stay in a open area or like a very barricaded home or building and it would be scary if they were either fast or slow because they are ZOMBIES and their objective is to eat you alive lol but it would be a lot scarier if they were fast because really, how long can a fat guy run without having a heartattack or needing to take a breath knowing that there is the undead behind him lol

They are both equally bad i'd say, in their own ways. It depends on how you look at it. Slow zeds build suspense (if your cornered, a lot more scary), but fast just make you paranoid and freak out often (but before you know it, it would all be over. Not a lot of time to build up suspense).

This all depends on whether the slow zombies are 'Shamblers', (Limp around, moving incredibly slowly) or Walkers (Brisk walk, maybe even a slow jog). I don't get why people think that slow zombies of any kind are not a threat, especially given how difficult they are to kill compared to 'infected' fast zombies.

Runners sort of ruin the concept behind zombies in my opinion. The horror in a zombie apocalypse, I feel, is derived from the knowledge that no matter what you do, no matter how long you hold out, you won't be able to escape the situation brought about by a zombie apocalypse. You'll never be able to escape the paranoia or the sense of impending doom.

I think tanks are scarier.

Actually I think zombies would start out Fast and gradually get slower.This is probably the most logical beacuse the Blood would pool and clot as well as stiffening the body.The Fast zombies would never get fatigued.Hmmmm.....
I think Fast are scarier, but in a slow zombie situation they would eventually all become stiff boards on the floor for rigor mortis.

Fast are indisputably more dangerous

andr_00_ew wrote:Fast are indisputably more dangerous

Definetly, but slow zombies would scare the shit out of me. Just think if you sprained your ankle or tripped on a sidewalk step? They're creeping closer and closer (at the same time your shitting your pants..) and then your friend pops out of nowhere and shots em all in the head

What if they are mixed.... FUCK!!!!!

The Ballpointer wrote:What if they are mixed.... FUCK!!!!!

Zombies that sometimes walk are better than running zombies.

the one where they can't keep up with me

I would have to say that running zombies are more dangerous and therefore harder to survive. Not only are you outnumbered but you are being chased by starving zombies so chances are they will run as fast as they possibly can no matter what.

Slow zombies is what makes a 20th century horror film retarded.
"Don't wait in the corner screaming while this zombie is coming at you 2 MPH across the living room!"

Courtyard Droll wrote:

The Ballpointer wrote:What if they are mixed.... FUCK!!!!!

Zombies that sometimes walk are better than running zombies.

How so?

I always thought the walking zombie would infect humans by biting them. Running zombie virus would start out airborne and infect a huge number of people and wouldn't bite humans. I say walking zombies are way more dangerous. Destroying the brain is the only way to defeat a walking zombie but a running zombie can die from a couple shots