kibblesticks Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 As a resident of Great Britain I could potentially be facing two scenarios: 1: Shaun of the Dead: We go for a pint and wait for all the fuss to blow over. 2: 28 Days Later: We all die horribly at the hands of sprinting rage zombies. 28 days is the superior zombie film in terms of realism, but then as Edgar Wright once said "zombies should be slow because death is not an energy drink". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glion Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 As a resident of Great Britain I could potentially be facing two scenarios: 1: Shaun of the Dead: We go for a pint and wait for all the fuss to blow over. 2: 28 Days Later: We all die horribly at the hands of sprinting rage zombies. 28 days is the superior zombie film in terms of realism, but then as Edgar Wright once said "zombies should be slow because death is not an energy drink". And we all know how Shaun of the Dead turned out just like they planned :P As for 28 Days/weeks later, HELL NO!! I dont care if i die in a zombie apocalypse, BUT I WOULD HATE IT if i died because I could not outrun a zombie....Dyeing surrounded by a mob of slow walking zombies is not also a good way, but at least I would have a shot....but the same mob of sprinting ones, and we are all f*cked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saadus Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Fast ones you don't have to head shot all the time. You can shoot them anyway and they starve. Slow ones last five years and you HAVE to destroy the brain. Decapitation does not work as the brain is still intact. :confused: Now it is a tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Fast ones you don't have to head shot all the time. You can shoot them anyway and they starve. Slow ones last five years and you HAVE to destroy the brain. Decapitation does not work as the brain is still intact. :confused: Now it is a tough call.Why not have both? They start out fast and then become slower after months of not eating tasty brains. Seems like a reasonable progression to me. Fast ones help cull the population quickly leaving only isolated groups, and slow ones slowly close in en-masse for those who are still alive. Hey, there could even be some that fake being slow just to give you a feeling of confidence before going all super-speed. You know... slow but prone to moments of sudden bursts of activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saadus Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Play Dead Island much? :tongue: It would make sense but I would rather one or the other if I get a say in it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihoe Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, I think we should argue about the possibility of zombies' existence first, before brainstorming the odds of a possible failure to a zombie apocalypse senario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Why not have both? They start out fast and then become slower after months of not eating tasty brains. I liked Dead Island's way of approaching the whole thing. People infected with the virus were fast and menacing, but after a while the virus kills them and they come back as slow zombies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K00L Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, I think we should argue about the possibility of zombies' existence first, before brainstorming the odds of a possible failure to a zombie apocalypse senario.Well here you go, the first zombie! Of course they think he overdosed on some type of drug first (it mentioned LSD or bath salts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihoe Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, I think we should argue about the possibility of zombies' existence first, before brainstorming the odds of a possible failure to a zombie apocalypse senario.Well here you go, the first zombie! Of course they think he overdosed on some type of drug first (it mentioned LSD or bath salts) Poor sod, must have never thought he'd become a known zombie. I hate to be the victim though, bad omen. Sometimes drunk dads or violent teens remind me of "zombies"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csb Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 10. Too many zombies, not enough fresh meat. Have you tried eating another zombie ... they taste horrible!9. They don't have a union.8. It would ruin the downside of Mondays and the upside of Fridays.7. Have you tried communicating with other zombies? They're monosyllabic morons. Or in Mencian terms -- dee dee dee's squared.6. Their fashion sense sucks. The tattered rags look is sooooo yesterday!5. How many times can you say arrrrggggh and really mean it?4. Bloodshot eyes are already too prevalent in society (see 8 above).3. No new innovative way to get killed ... damn Saints Row 3 already used the banana bat idea...2. There's no getting past the FPS v. 3rd Person debate. And some hardcore RTS guy is going to insist that it be an RTS Zombie Apocolypse.1. They didn't invite the werewolves and vampires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now