Should have saved this rant for Halloween, same with that live Deadliest Warrior special lol (which I did not watch, good concept for a show but it was live and way too drawn out).
Safe to say Twilight ruined vamps and i'm not sure hollywood will ever have the guts to go back to how they should be.. so zombies will be the clear winner for the seeable future. Though i'm getting quite sick of them personally..
I still have to go with vampires, but more like the ones in the Necroscope series of books by Brian Lumley, not the big girls blouse wearing wannabe hair dresser types of today, when I were a lad we had proper Vampires and al this was feilds you know, oh yes, and a tram was six pence.
I am sick to the back teeth of both of them in all honesty.
But as for Vampires being lame these days... blame Anne Rice, not Twilight. She made the whole emotional vampire with a soul rubbish that led to that popular .
I guess I have to agree with Coyote this time, teenage crap have destroyed a lot of the good muthology but zombies are hard to destroy...
I do think there atill are other cooler undeads than zombies who have an actual purpose and who really frightened people in ye olde days.
Revenants are frigging nasty and a lot of the really bad stuff later attributet to vampires are comming from them. Except that their bodies didn't look alive of course abnd people they showed themselves to died horrible soon.
Fylgja is the name of the undead the vikings feared (yeah, that was about the only thing they feared). They were really strong and almost impossible to kill while still having most of the zombie looks, but not the slow zombie speed.
The real problem with zombies is that "Death valley" is far more likelier than "The walking dead". People turn far too fast for it to ever become a world wide thing, and zombies are just too slow to kill the entire humanity except a few survivors.
A buddy of mine BTW have a zombie survival kit at home ready for the war. Really he has, he was also kind enough to list me as the number one guy he wanted with him (I have several real swords and a armor, those would be pretty useful if the zobies actually would come since swords don't need ammo).
I am sick to the back teeth of both of them in all honesty.
But as for Vampires being lame these days... blame Anne Rice, not Twilight. She made the whole emotional vampire with a soul rubbish that led to that popular .
She is not the only one or even the first one, there are plenty of books 20 years older with the same theme. But for pop culture is she and Mark Reinhagen two of the worst culprits (Mark created Vampire the masquerade that CCP is making a MMO of).
All that said, even the Anne Rice vampires didn't glitter or date hill billy girls. Twilight and True blood are a few steps worse than anything before. Just look on the old "Kindred - the embraced" serie Spelling made based on Reinhagens lore (with a lot of people from Melrose place), it was bad but nowhere near Twilight bad.
all i have to say is watch Hellsing OVA there is the most badass vampire ever
Alucard is just Dracula and the OVA is OK but not amazing.
The manga though is kickass, I love when the nazi vamps and werewolfs attack London in zeppelins.
I still think Bram Stoker did the best work (not in any movies but in the book) and Dracula is really a must read. The only book that have been more massacred in bad movies than it is Shelleys brilliant Frankenstein.
"The real problem with zombies is that "Death valley" is far more likelier than "The walking dead". People turn far too fast for it to ever become a world wide thing, and zombies are just too slow to kill the entire humanity except a few survivors."
AH, but in the Walking Dead people didn't HAVE to be bitten in order to turn into a zombie. Anyone who died, no matter what the cause (except head trauma), would turn into a zombie. Evidently it's a dormant virus or something that isn't activated until after the host is dead, which would cause a huge outbreak of zombies like what is seen in Walking Dead. So if grampy keeled over from a heart attack, he'd be back in a few to take a bite out of his kin folk. Imagine how many people die each day around the world from ANY cause - that's how many zombies would appear within a few hours post death within the Walking Dead universe. Zombie-pandemic becomes more likely.
Oh, and I was a bit disappointed that vampires weren't set against werewolves - seems like a gimme - in Deadliest Warrior. For me, I love the werewolves in Underworld, tearing the crap out of the emo-vampires. Pit those werewolves against the 30 Days of Night vampires and THAT would have been too close to call, imo. And probably a better show (though I do love zombies, there's no way zombies would have overtaken a 30 Days vamp).
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
While Zombies surely can't be prettied up... I'd submit that the problem is that we have taken out the potential threats from all viable monsters except the real ones.
Movies about serial killers and sociopaths genuinely scare folks.
Monster movies don't... Zombies included.
The day a movie director figures out a way to make people scared of the dark again, people might again begin to question whether what's going bump in it is human.
Then those creatures famous for living in the dark places can be scary again.. but not before.
Zombies impart a fear that vampires cannot for me. Seems like every recent portrayal of vampires has been in a very homoerotic way, in the last 25 year I cannot honestly say there has been more then one real "Badass" vampire, and that was Valek in John Carpenters Vampires.
With this teen angst crap that is being force fed to us as of late, I see a growing trend of the more and more femine and gayish vampire continuing to surface, until the genre is dead.
Zombies on the other hand invoke more realism, from the ideas of a man made "rage" virus to the Solanum virus in Max Brooks novel World War Z. When the virus spreads it is an all out war on the immune system, thus sparking a global epidemic, sweeping the lands with frothing hungry walkers.
This to me is ten times scarier then a fruitty vampire coming and nibbling at my neck for my precious red nectar. Zombies will do more then nibble, they will rip you to shreds leaving nothing but viscera and bone, and move on to the next victim until there is nothing left to feed upon.
Vampires were and are the master predeters, they are usualy shown as smart, blend in with their prey (us) and are usualy a lot more powerfull than us.
the modern take on vampires makes them way to glamorous, totaly out of character.
nearly every culture has a vampire lengend, and all of them fear them and with good reason.
just hope that the new remake of ~"Fright night" gets the producers back on track.
(what's with all the remakes by the way follywood? no one there think of anything new?)
at least movies like "near dark" (the original from '87), "from dusk till dawn" and more recently "30 days of night" had the vampires more in line with the blood sucking violent sods that they are.
it seems like people are trying to humanitize those things which they fear, even zombies are getting a makeover (can you makeover something that in in such a state of decay?) to make us more sympathetic to their plight and i can see a "zombie diaries" coming soon to your local tv station - having someone over for dinner will bring a new and interesting take on the old romantic evening, as for having a leg over? who;s leg will it be:)
It also seemed kinda pointless, because which one wins totally depends on what kind of vampies and what kind of zombies you're talking about.
They put 30 Days of Night vampires up against George Romero zombies. Yeah, the zombies had numbers on their side, but it really wasn't a fair fight from the start.
Now, if they'd done 30 Days of Night vampires vs. the infected in 28 Days Later, that might have been more interesting.
...Why the hell are we talking about this? It's an MMO site.
Must be a pretty slow off-season, in our favorite pass-time, to be talking about random stuff... just saying.
But I digress to the subject at hand:
I say, if the strongest, fastest, and most ruthless vampire squared off against the strongest, fastest, and most rampent zombie outbreak; zombies would triumph. Because when you go up against zombies... you go up against them all. And not all zombies are shamblers, either; some... are sprinters (and I guess are technically not zombies, either, but still).
Even if the vampires ran in a pack, too. The odds would be 100 against 1 in most areas of respective infection. Eventually, vampires would be toast in a zombie outbreak. Any bets on how a vimpire/zombie would look? (30 Days of Night style, probably; with more rot and blood)
Besides... how can a vampire feed off of a zombie horde? Zombies tend to bite whenever anyone gets in range; vampires included. Their blood probably coagulated days or weeks ago. Vamp would be infected by zombie before vamp could suck any useful amount of blood from the zombie... and I think zombie would keep on kicking if he were completely drained.
Sure, vamp would have blood banks and hospitals to work from for a time, but he wouldn't have enough of that to keep going. And the scattered tribes of surviving humans? They would be scarce and limited too. Unless the vamp decided to "farm" the humans for their blood by letting them breed, but then the vamp could have to contend with the irritation (if not total combustion) by sunlight every day from the outside of a zombie-proofed shelter.
Yet, given alot of luck and advanced planning, perhaps a vampire would be able to survive for some decades after a zombie outbreak starts... but how long would that outbreak last? Ten years, twenty, fifty; who's to say? Can a zombie survive in an almost fully skeletal state? It's not magic, so I guess not. Once his brain starts to rot away, he'd be a non-threat.
How long will a vampire last, feeding off whatever sources he can? Shorter, longer? What kind of vampire? Casually feeds only every couple years; for youth? Needs to, or else he dies of hunger after a day or week; like a meal?
Who's keeping track of all that? I don't think I will. I got homework to do! Trigonometry won't solve itself!
Zombies, from a scientific standpoint, would actually be pretty weak. They run off of nothing but the brain, yes? The brain needs oxygen and, therefore, blood. Most zombies are already bleeding out when they turn. They can't handle heat or cold, so they would need the perfect temperature. They are stupid, so the only strategy they have is zerging. They would be like a guy with downs syndrome and aids. Also, if they aren't fast they would be worthless.
Vampires, on the other hand, are super humans. Super strength, speed, senses, and intellect. They would come of with a strategy that plays perfectly to their strengths and the weaknesses of the zombies (The Dealiest Warrior made the vampires idiots). Variable factors would be... How often to they need to feed and can the zombies infect them? Even if they needed to feed daily and the zombies could infect them, I don't see the zombies winning.
However, I love zombies and (true, not twilight) vampires equally. I would think that, if anything, the vampires would be the ones controlling the zombies.
This to me is ten times scarier then a fruitty vampire coming and nibbling at my neck for my precious red nectar. Zombies will do more then nibble, they will rip you to shreds leaving nothing but viscera and bone, and move on to the next victim until there is nothing left to feed upon.
I also find the whole "2 punctures wounds" hilarious for a vampire bite. Now that you mention it, John Carpenter's Vampires movie did this one justice - when a vampire bites your neck he takes a good chunk of meat and skin with it to get the best blood spurt possible.
But then again, yeah, it's the bastardization of vampires in popular fiction that kinda devalues them (although you can't completely deny that sexuality and freedom were always some of the main points of the vampire myths), mainly how people decide to focus on superficial aspects of the vampire condition while completely ignoring everything else (I don't know about you, but very thought that you'd have to hunt living beings for their blood is kinda terrifying for me). If you check the old folklore you'll find out some really unsettling tales that happen to cross the gaps between vampires, zombies and werewolves.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
I am sick to the back teeth of both of them in all honesty.
But as for Vampires being lame these days... blame Anne Rice, not Twilight. She made the whole emotional vampire with a soul rubbish that led to that popular .
She is not the only one or even the first one, there are plenty of books 20 years older with the same theme. But for pop culture is she and Mark Reinhagen two of the worst culprits (Mark created Vampire the masquerade that CCP is making a MMO of).
Comments
That was - again - a hilarious read, thanks.
Norden
Should have saved this rant for Halloween, same with that live Deadliest Warrior special lol (which I did not watch, good concept for a show but it was live and way too drawn out).
Safe to say Twilight ruined vamps and i'm not sure hollywood will ever have the guts to go back to how they should be.. so zombies will be the clear winner for the seeable future. Though i'm getting quite sick of them personally..
I still have to go with vampires, but more like the ones in the Necroscope series of books by Brian Lumley, not the big girls blouse wearing wannabe hair dresser types of today, when I were a lad we had proper Vampires and al this was feilds you know, oh yes, and a tram was six pence.
I am sick to the back teeth of both of them in all honesty.
But as for Vampires being lame these days... blame Anne Rice, not Twilight. She made the whole emotional vampire with a soul rubbish that led to that popular .
I guess I have to agree with Coyote this time, teenage crap have destroyed a lot of the good muthology but zombies are hard to destroy...
I do think there atill are other cooler undeads than zombies who have an actual purpose and who really frightened people in ye olde days.
Revenants are frigging nasty and a lot of the really bad stuff later attributet to vampires are comming from them. Except that their bodies didn't look alive of course abnd people they showed themselves to died horrible soon.
Fylgja is the name of the undead the vikings feared (yeah, that was about the only thing they feared). They were really strong and almost impossible to kill while still having most of the zombie looks, but not the slow zombie speed.
The real problem with zombies is that "Death valley" is far more likelier than "The walking dead". People turn far too fast for it to ever become a world wide thing, and zombies are just too slow to kill the entire humanity except a few survivors.
A buddy of mine BTW have a zombie survival kit at home ready for the war. Really he has, he was also kind enough to list me as the number one guy he wanted with him (I have several real swords and a armor, those would be pretty useful if the zobies actually would come since swords don't need ammo).
She is not the only one or even the first one, there are plenty of books 20 years older with the same theme. But for pop culture is she and Mark Reinhagen two of the worst culprits (Mark created Vampire the masquerade that CCP is making a MMO of).
All that said, even the Anne Rice vampires didn't glitter or date hill billy girls. Twilight and True blood are a few steps worse than anything before. Just look on the old "Kindred - the embraced" serie Spelling made based on Reinhagens lore (with a lot of people from Melrose place), it was bad but nowhere near Twilight bad.
all i have to say is watch Hellsing OVA there is the most badass vampire ever
Alucard is just Dracula and the OVA is OK but not amazing.
The manga though is kickass, I love when the nazi vamps and werewolfs attack London in zeppelins.
I still think Bram Stoker did the best work (not in any movies but in the book) and Dracula is really a must read. The only book that have been more massacred in bad movies than it is Shelleys brilliant Frankenstein.
How weak is your mind if only 4 books (that in 3 years will be lost in oblivion...) can change the way you see vampires?
1k years of legends, books, comics, movies againt 5 years of teen bad literature?
Man up.
AH, but in the Walking Dead people didn't HAVE to be bitten in order to turn into a zombie. Anyone who died, no matter what the cause (except head trauma), would turn into a zombie. Evidently it's a dormant virus or something that isn't activated until after the host is dead, which would cause a huge outbreak of zombies like what is seen in Walking Dead. So if grampy keeled over from a heart attack, he'd be back in a few to take a bite out of his kin folk. Imagine how many people die each day around the world from ANY cause - that's how many zombies would appear within a few hours post death within the Walking Dead universe. Zombie-pandemic becomes more likely.
Oh, and I was a bit disappointed that vampires weren't set against werewolves - seems like a gimme - in Deadliest Warrior. For me, I love the werewolves in Underworld, tearing the crap out of the emo-vampires. Pit those werewolves against the 30 Days of Night vampires and THAT would have been too close to call, imo. And probably a better show (though I do love zombies, there's no way zombies would have overtaken a 30 Days vamp).
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
While Zombies surely can't be prettied up... I'd submit that the problem is that we have taken out the potential threats from all viable monsters except the real ones.
Movies about serial killers and sociopaths genuinely scare folks.
Monster movies don't... Zombies included.
The day a movie director figures out a way to make people scared of the dark again, people might again begin to question whether what's going bump in it is human.
Then those creatures famous for living in the dark places can be scary again.. but not before.
Big deal. Zombie are better than Vampires. Well, llamas are bigger than frogs!
What's this article got to do with MMORPGs? Seems like someone didn't have an idea for this week's column.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Zombies impart a fear that vampires cannot for me. Seems like every recent portrayal of vampires has been in a very homoerotic way, in the last 25 year I cannot honestly say there has been more then one real "Badass" vampire, and that was Valek in John Carpenters Vampires.
With this teen angst crap that is being force fed to us as of late, I see a growing trend of the more and more femine and gayish vampire continuing to surface, until the genre is dead.
Zombies on the other hand invoke more realism, from the ideas of a man made "rage" virus to the Solanum virus in Max Brooks novel World War Z. When the virus spreads it is an all out war on the immune system, thus sparking a global epidemic, sweeping the lands with frothing hungry walkers.
This to me is ten times scarier then a fruitty vampire coming and nibbling at my neck for my precious red nectar. Zombies will do more then nibble, they will rip you to shreds leaving nothing but viscera and bone, and move on to the next victim until there is nothing left to feed upon.
Zombies win by landslide.
Vampires were and are the master predeters, they are usualy shown as smart, blend in with their prey (us) and are usualy a lot more powerfull than us.
the modern take on vampires makes them way to glamorous, totaly out of character.
nearly every culture has a vampire lengend, and all of them fear them and with good reason.
just hope that the new remake of ~"Fright night" gets the producers back on track.
(what's with all the remakes by the way follywood? no one there think of anything new?)
at least movies like "near dark" (the original from '87), "from dusk till dawn" and more recently "30 days of night" had the vampires more in line with the blood sucking violent sods that they are.
it seems like people are trying to humanitize those things which they fear, even zombies are getting a makeover (can you makeover something that in in such a state of decay?) to make us more sympathetic to their plight and i can see a "zombie diaries" coming soon to your local tv station - having someone over for dinner will bring a new and interesting take on the old romantic evening, as for having a leg over? who;s leg will it be:)
i look this wrecked because i've got GIST.
Whats your excuse?
http://deadmanrambling.com/
You guys need to watch Fido... seriously...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457572/
They put 30 Days of Night vampires up against George Romero zombies. Yeah, the zombies had numbers on their side, but it really wasn't a fair fight from the start.
Now, if they'd done 30 Days of Night vampires vs. the infected in 28 Days Later, that might have been more interesting.
...Why the hell are we talking about this? It's an MMO site.
Must be a pretty slow off-season, in our favorite pass-time, to be talking about random stuff... just saying.
But I digress to the subject at hand:
I say, if the strongest, fastest, and most ruthless vampire squared off against the strongest, fastest, and most rampent zombie outbreak; zombies would triumph. Because when you go up against zombies... you go up against them all. And not all zombies are shamblers, either; some... are sprinters (and I guess are technically not zombies, either, but still).
Even if the vampires ran in a pack, too. The odds would be 100 against 1 in most areas of respective infection. Eventually, vampires would be toast in a zombie outbreak. Any bets on how a vimpire/zombie would look? (30 Days of Night style, probably; with more rot and blood)
Besides... how can a vampire feed off of a zombie horde? Zombies tend to bite whenever anyone gets in range; vampires included. Their blood probably coagulated days or weeks ago. Vamp would be infected by zombie before vamp could suck any useful amount of blood from the zombie... and I think zombie would keep on kicking if he were completely drained.
Sure, vamp would have blood banks and hospitals to work from for a time, but he wouldn't have enough of that to keep going. And the scattered tribes of surviving humans? They would be scarce and limited too. Unless the vamp decided to "farm" the humans for their blood by letting them breed, but then the vamp could have to contend with the irritation (if not total combustion) by sunlight every day from the outside of a zombie-proofed shelter.
Yet, given alot of luck and advanced planning, perhaps a vampire would be able to survive for some decades after a zombie outbreak starts... but how long would that outbreak last? Ten years, twenty, fifty; who's to say? Can a zombie survive in an almost fully skeletal state? It's not magic, so I guess not. Once his brain starts to rot away, he'd be a non-threat.
How long will a vampire last, feeding off whatever sources he can? Shorter, longer? What kind of vampire? Casually feeds only every couple years; for youth? Needs to, or else he dies of hunger after a day or week; like a meal?
Who's keeping track of all that? I don't think I will. I got homework to do! Trigonometry won't solve itself!
Zombies, from a scientific standpoint, would actually be pretty weak. They run off of nothing but the brain, yes? The brain needs oxygen and, therefore, blood. Most zombies are already bleeding out when they turn. They can't handle heat or cold, so they would need the perfect temperature. They are stupid, so the only strategy they have is zerging. They would be like a guy with downs syndrome and aids. Also, if they aren't fast they would be worthless.
Vampires, on the other hand, are super humans. Super strength, speed, senses, and intellect. They would come of with a strategy that plays perfectly to their strengths and the weaknesses of the zombies (The Dealiest Warrior made the vampires idiots). Variable factors would be... How often to they need to feed and can the zombies infect them? Even if they needed to feed daily and the zombies could infect them, I don't see the zombies winning.
However, I love zombies and (true, not twilight) vampires equally. I would think that, if anything, the vampires would be the ones controlling the zombies.
Edit: http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html < Yes, it's craked.com but they make excellent points.
What about.......ZOMBIE VAMPIRES?!?!?!?
Really, what makes you so sure that vampires are immune to whatever infection, chemical, parasite, etc. that turns humans???
Think about that.....human extinction in 3, 2, 1....
But then again, yeah, it's the bastardization of vampires in popular fiction that kinda devalues them (although you can't completely deny that sexuality and freedom were always some of the main points of the vampire myths), mainly how people decide to focus on superficial aspects of the vampire condition while completely ignoring everything else (I don't know about you, but very thought that you'd have to hunt living beings for their blood is kinda terrifying for me). If you check the old folklore you'll find out some really unsettling tales that happen to cross the gaps between vampires, zombies and werewolves.
Check out the movie 'Stake Land'. It's a little slow, but still well done and the vampires are kind of a vampire/zombie hybrid.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer ruined vampires.......Twilight was the nail in the coffin (so to speak)
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
To be fair, I didnt say she was either Loke...
Tbh, I don't actually mind a topic not directly about MMORPGs... gets boring watching the same arguments goround and around.