Is it just me, or is zombies as body shields ridiculous?

#1 Posted by Alo81 (82 posts) -

What makes humans good human shields as that we fear for our lives, so we don't resist and just kind of let the holder control us.

A zombie doesn't give a shit if it lives, and would be struggling and chomping at you anyway that it could.

I don't know about you guys, but i think that just seems super fucking stupid.

#2 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5250 posts) -

Meat shield's a meat shield.

#3 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

But a zombie can also be used as a human sword. It's both!

#4 Posted by coakroach (2488 posts) -

Its a fucking video game dude.

Of course its stupid.

#5 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

Everything about Operation Raccoon City is pretty fucking stupid.

#6 Posted by DeShawn2ks (1052 posts) -

As long as the bullets aren't hitting me I will use anything to hide behind.

#7 Posted by Live2bRighteous (315 posts) -

Honestly, I don't see anything stupid about it. If I lived in a world filled with zombies, combined with some assholes that had me pinned down... I would definitely take advantage of an already dead (Like) thing being my meatshield.

#8 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -
@Alo81: how about a dead zombie?
#9 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

#10 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10507 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

I disagree with your statement. Nothing about zombies makes them more bullet absorbent. Bullets will pass through a zombie just as easily as they would a not-undead person. The thing with zombies is that they have a higher tolerance for pain (or rather, they don't feel pain), so it just seems like they absorb bullets. But in reality, it would not make a better shield, at least in terms of actually protecting from the bullets.

Online
#11 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4 said:

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

I disagree with your statement. Nothing about zombies makes them more bullet absorbent. Bullets will pass through a zombie just as easily as they would a not-undead person. The thing with zombies is that they have a higher tolerance for pain (or rather, they don't feel pain), so it just seems like they absorb bullets. But in reality, it would not make a better shield, at least in terms of actually protecting from the bullets.

And why not? A zombie would still be standing due to the lack of feeling pain. A living person who is eventually shot up enough will become limp and more of a hassle to carry around. A zombie will still be on it's feet the entire time, hence being the better meat shield.

#12 Edited by iPliskin (117 posts) -

Everything after RE3 is super fucking stupid, except for the remakes and RE0.

#13 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -
@mcderby4: A meat shield is a meat shield, you wouldnt carry it around with you so it wont matter if a person starts becoming more limp
#14 Edited by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -
@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4 said:

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

I disagree with your statement. Nothing about zombies makes them more bullet absorbent. Bullets will pass through a zombie just as easily as they would a not-undead person. The thing with zombies is that they have a higher tolerance for pain (or rather, they don't feel pain), so it just seems like they absorb bullets. But in reality, it would not make a better shield, at least in terms of actually protecting from the bullets.

I disagree with your disagreement! So theoretically, after the person is shot, would become much harder to control, this is obviously caused from the large amount of pain caused by the wound. Whereas with a zombie, like you said probably feels no pain, therefore their status wouldn't change whether they took a shot to the knee or a shot to the chest. Other than a few tries to bite your forearm (which could easily be avoided with a firm grip to the throat or some kind of forearm protection, this is Umbrella, they know what to expect) a zombie is a much better meat shield than a human.  BAM!!! 
 
#15 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3050 posts) -

What's keeping it from biting you?

#16 Posted by Toxeia (729 posts) -

A zombie can take more bullets, but take this into account. There's serious muscle atrophy in zombies. That's less body mass to stop a bullet.

#17 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1735 posts) -

You say it like Resident Evil isn't already ridiculous.

#18 Posted by Skullo (646 posts) -

@benjaebe said:

Everything about Operation Raccoon City is pretty fucking stupid.

Supposedly this is Capcom's shot towards the Call of Duty market. Also game is a retcon and it will fail and we never see another game that has Claire Redfield in it. So fuck this game in the ear, I say.

#19 Posted by Three0neFive (2288 posts) -

@SoldierG654342 said:

You say it like Resident Evil isn't already ridiculous.

Pretty much this, Resident Evil has always been, and (hopefully) will always be campy as shit. That's it's only saving grace in my opinion - it's got horrible controls and mediocre graphics, the least they can do is give me some Jill Sandwich every now and then.

#20 Posted by Ducksworth (659 posts) -

Aside from the bullet shield point, I'd also like to add that if there's a zombie trying to get to you then the only place said zombie will have to bite you is the arm holding the hostage zombie where as in other cases the Zombie will have all of you to munch upon. On top of that if it gets too close you could always push hostage zombie into approaching zombie and cause a bit of stumbling to get yourself a bit of extra free time to run...that is assuming we have the slow crawling zombies instead of the running and jumping types.

#21 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4 said:

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

I disagree with your statement. Nothing about zombies makes them more bullet absorbent. Bullets will pass through a zombie just as easily as they would a not-undead person. The thing with zombies is that they have a higher tolerance for pain (or rather, they don't feel pain), so it just seems like they absorb bullets. But in reality, it would not make a better shield, at least in terms of actually protecting from the bullets.

I disagree with your disagreement! So theoretically, after the person is shot, would become much harder to control, this is obviously caused from the large amount of pain caused by the wound. Whereas with a zombie, like you said probably feels no pain, therefore their status wouldn't change whether they took a shot to the knee or a shot to the chest. Other than a few tries to bite your forearm (which could easily be avoided with a firm grip to the throat or some kind of forearm protection, this is Umbrella, they know what to expect) a zombie is a much better meat shield than a human. BAM!!!

Lmao, can't argue with that, but I propose this... Video game physics are whack bro! Anything can happen!

#22 Edited by Yummylee (21279 posts) -

@Skullo said:

@benjaebe said:

Everything about Operation Raccoon City is pretty fucking stupid.

Supposedly this is Capcom's shot towards the Call of Duty market. Also game is a retcon and it will fail and we never see another game that has Claire Redfield in it. So fuck this game in the ear, I say.

It's not a retcon, it's just a weird little ''what-if'' take on the Raccoon City outbreak. It's completely and utterly pointless... but I'm buying it anyway >_>

As for the topic, sure a meat shield's a meat shield, but a zombie is a very rotten meat shield. I imagine it would fall apart quicker than a live one. But again, Resident Evil, so whatevs.

Online
#23 Posted by CounterShock (420 posts) -

Yeah it's pretty dumb, but if you start looking too hard at things like this, you'll start to hate video game.

#24 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10507 posts) -

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Online
#25 Posted by M_Shini (550 posts) -

Resident Evil in a alternative world where you can kill Leon kenedy is already weird so may as well go all the way.

#26 Posted by NTM (7269 posts) -

That's kind of what I was thinking too. I mean, the part about the arm around the neck, and a zombie biting you? What are the chances?

#27 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

That's it, you've done it.
 
Someone's finally cracked that airtight Resident Evil fiction.

#28 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

It's made by the guys that made Socom so you know it's going to be terrible judging from the trainwrecks those last few games were.

#29 Posted by AndrewB (7500 posts) -

I'd rather use a body as a Zombie shield. That would be a neat new feature. Patent Pending.

#30 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Yeah but we're talking about video games duder! Of course a meat shield would make absolutely no sense in real life and is most often avoided at all costs since tactically it brings at the worst possible place you could be during a fire-fight.

#31 Posted by Swoxx (2988 posts) -

@ShadowConqueror said:

What's keeping it from biting you?

Exactly, I'm not wrapping my arm around a zombies neck. That's basically presenting them with a meal.

#32 Posted by Sweep (8823 posts) -

@wolf_blitzer85 said:

Meat shield's a meat shield.

This.

@benjaebe said:

Everything about Operation Raccoon City is pretty fucking stupid.

And this.

Having said that, I still want to play it :D

Moderator
#33 Posted by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -
@mcderby4

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Yeah but we're talking about video games duder! Of course a meat shield would make absolutely no sense in real life and is most often avoided at all costs since tactically it brings at the worst possible place you could be during a fire-fight.

Now you have a point on the rotting flesh but what about this… now hear me out. You have a human grabbed by a zombie from their back. You then grab the zombie WHILE it holds the human, now you have a zombie and a human meat shield. All the advantages and none of this disadvantages. I mean the person will be busy with the zombie and the zombie will be busy with the person, hence zero disadvantage

I love this conversation…
#34 Posted by Getz (2989 posts) -

Not to mention they'd be all rotten and decomposed and probably not that resilient.

#35 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10507 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

@mcderby4

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Yeah but we're talking about video games duder! Of course a meat shield would make absolutely no sense in real life and is most often avoided at all costs since tactically it brings at the worst possible place you could be during a fire-fight.

Now you have a point on the rotting flesh but what about this… now hear me out. You have a human grabbed by a zombie from their back. You then grab the zombie WHILE it holds the human, now you have a zombie and a human meat shield. All the advantages and none of this disadvantages. I mean the person will be busy with the zombie and the zombie will be busy with the person, hence zero disadvantage I love this conversation…

Yes! We have found the answer!

Now the sad thing is I'll always be saddened when games don't feature double meat-shields like this.

Online
#36 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -
@iPliskin said:


                    Everything after RE3 is super fucking stupid, except for the remakes and RE0.

                   

               

Ahahahahahaahah. Right. I disagree with you. Especially with your RE0 statement.
#37 Posted by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -
@MooseyMcMan said:

@Sackmanjones said:

@mcderby4

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Yeah but we're talking about video games duder! Of course a meat shield would make absolutely no sense in real life and is most often avoided at all costs since tactically it brings at the worst possible place you could be during a fire-fight.

Now you have a point on the rotting flesh but what about this… now hear me out. You have a human grabbed by a zombie from their back. You then grab the zombie WHILE it holds the human, now you have a zombie and a human meat shield. All the advantages and none of this disadvantages. I mean the person will be busy with the zombie and the zombie will be busy with the person, hence zero disadvantage I love this conversation…

Yes! We have found the answer!

Now the sad thing is I'll always be saddened when games don't feature double meat-shields like this.

Prepare for disappointment..... =(
#38 Posted by Buckwatters (141 posts) -

@benjaebe said:

Everything about Operation Raccoon City is pretty fucking stupid.

Fixed* Everything about Resident Evil is pretty fucking stupid.

I still love the franchise though, but even I have to admit, it's pretty dumb, but in a fun way.

#39 Posted by Hector (3356 posts) -

@SoldierG654342 said:

You say it like Resident Evil isn't already ridiculous.

Bingo.

#40 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Sackmanjones said:

@mcderby4

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4: @Sackmanjones: No, no, no! You misunderstand!

What I really mean is that neither a person nor a zombie would make good meat-shields, because many bullets tend to fly straight through material like human (or zombie) flesh. The whole idea of using a "meat sack" to stop bullets is dumb.

Also, part of the reason why a human would be used as a meat shield is the idea that the person doing the shooting might not want to shoot the person used as a shield. For example, during a bank robbery, the robber might use a civilian as a shield against the cops. However, no one will think twice about shooting at a zombie (though, in most games, the enemies don't seem to care about whoever you might use as a shield).

Yeah but we're talking about video games duder! Of course a meat shield would make absolutely no sense in real life and is most often avoided at all costs since tactically it brings at the worst possible place you could be during a fire-fight.

Now you have a point on the rotting flesh but what about this… now hear me out. You have a human grabbed by a zombie from their back. You then grab the zombie WHILE it holds the human, now you have a zombie and a human meat shield. All the advantages and none of this disadvantages. I mean the person will be busy with the zombie and the zombie will be busy with the person, hence zero disadvantage I love this conversation…

Yes! We have found the answer!

Now the sad thing is I'll always be saddened when games don't feature double meat-shields like this.

Prepare for disappointment..... =(

Oh geez... I think I'm already disappointed with the current meat shield in Racoon City...

#41 Posted by Rafaelfc (1316 posts) -

the problem isn't that it is ridiculous, the problem is that it isn't ridiculous enough

#42 Posted by DeF (4808 posts) -

no, this one time it really is JUST you.

#43 Posted by HatKing (5832 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@mcderby4 said:

Technically, a zombie would make a better meatshield than an actual living person since they would absorb bullets more.

Regardless, it's a videogame. Who gives a shit.

I disagree with your statement. Nothing about zombies makes them more bullet absorbent. Bullets will pass through a zombie just as easily as they would a not-undead person. The thing with zombies is that they have a higher tolerance for pain (or rather, they don't feel pain), so it just seems like they absorb bullets. But in reality, it would not make a better shield, at least in terms of actually protecting from the bullets.

And why not? A zombie would still be standing due to the lack of feeling pain. A living person who is eventually shot up enough will become limp and more of a hassle to carry around. A zombie will still be on it's feet the entire time, hence being the better meat shield.

But it would be struggling the whole time. Also zombies are gross. They probably shit their pants and don't care. So keep that in mind while you're ass-to-crotch with one of them. I bet they'd fall apart more easily, too. And you couldn't just let go of a zombie if you decided you didn't need the shield anymore because it'd turn around and bite you on the dick.

#44 Posted by MrGorilla (6 posts) -

@wolf_blitzer85 said:

Meat shield's a meat shield.

2nd that! The meat shield is totally underrated. This is the perfect combo when dealing with a blood thirsty bunch of zombos IMO. Just remember to stuff the zombies mouth with something, or shoot their face off before using!

#45 Posted by FlamingxTsunami (1 posts) -

@iPliskin: You have that backwards, everything before Res 4 sucks. The reason the games are how they are now is because the developers wanted to make the series like that in the first place, but didn't have the technology to do it.

#46 Edited by LaserLambert (167 posts) -

@FlamingxTsunami: I don't know about that, I think they definitely wanted the static camera angles to be like a scary movie, but they didn't realize that playing with static camera angles and tank controls controlled like garbage.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.