Which post-apocalyptic world would you rather live in?
In the Zombie Apocalypse, it would be slow zombie and in the Nuclear Apocalypse
Which post-apocalyptic world would you rather live in?
In the Zombie Apocalypse, it would be slow zombie and in the Nuclear Apocalypse
Nuclear apocalypse sounds less fucked. At least there will be a lot less people trying to eat me than in a zombie apocalypse.
Zombie.
High levels of radiation everywhere is definitely not something you want. Also, think of it this way - in a zombie apocalypse your friends and family will likely end up turning on you, but let's face it, they'll probably end up doing that in a post-nuclear-apocalypse too.
I'd rather live in neither cause I'd be the first to die. But nuclear post-apocalypse seems easier to survive in.
Zombies can be avoided or killed. In a nuclear apocalypse you have to worry about radiation in everything from the water to the air. It's better to live in a world over run with zombies than a world fucked and poisoned by nuclear radiation. You can't kill cancer with a headshot.
Damn tough choice. A zombie apocalypse would be more psychologically painful but more fun. A nuclear apocalypse would be more boring, but you wouldn't have to deal with your loved ones being eaten or wanting to munch on your face.
Zombies. I'd die either way, so might as well make it entertaining while it lasts.
Hard to say.. I went with nuclear though, just because I'd almost rather have to deal with all that radiation and finding safe zones from it than to deal with all of the emotional/psychological trauma of dealing with zombies PLUS the hazards of dealing with the zombies themselves and the lack of resources and everything else. Unless there are also zombies IN the nuclear apocalypse, then fuck that shit.
Zombies, no contest. It's a lot harder to fight radiation than a walking corpse and at least you can barricade or hide or be sure that the stuff you're eating and drinking isn't going to kill you.
Nuclear. Killing zombies would get extremely tiresome and useless after about three weeks. They would've all rotted away by then.
Might as well ask it here: why would zombies cause an apocalypse? What about coming back from the dead equates with making everything else dead? Wouldn't the zombies just rot back to death in less than a week?
nuclear apocalypse, cuz if you survive the event itself and about a year afterwards then youre pretty much ok later on :P
i mean, IRL i doubt there would be deathclaws running around fallout-style trying to eat you
Then it would have to be zombies. They only pose a threat in small enclosed spaces such as the Spencer Mansion. In wide open environments there easy to avoid and dispose of.@Hargreaves93: The Zombies are more RE or Dead Rising zombies not Left 4 Dead.
Zombie apocalypse. Though the severe trauma is likely to toast your brain and kill any trace of humanity in you at the end, the chance of surviving a zombie apocalypse might be higher, at least generally though, as the nuclear detonation will most likely be so severe that the majority of humans will be wiped out in an instant AND the left over will NOT look like the guys from Terminator Salvation or Fallout, they will be extremely disfigured and have critical radiation sickness which turns your blood black and eats your body from inside.
The perks of a zombie apocalypse seems to me as the following:
Relatively intact infastructure
Less chance of contaminated water supply
Greater amount of the population to survive the initial attack and repel
Government could be largely intact
No strategic or tactical areas are wiped out in an instant (Zombie and intelligence? NO)
THE EARTH SURVIVES!
Perks of a nuclear apocalypse:
Chance of quick death (Weird, but imagine being bitten to death)
Less people to to compete for material/supplies
I cannot think about any more?
I can't believe some of you guys are even considering nuclear apocalypse. Radiation-induced deaths are super painful, invisible, and you would not be able to get rid of radiation poisoning by any conventional means.
Zombies you can fight and avoid, radiation is a damn cosmic threat.
Well with Nuclear Apocalypse , you got your geiger counter to make the radiation evident, therefore making it more avoidable . As Three Dog would say "Tick-Tick-Tickety means run your ass out". Ontop of that, there aren't any biological diseases or whatever the fuck infected them in the case of "Zombie Apocalypse". And judging by just about every zombie movie I saw, once bit your shit out of luck, while in the case of radiation poisoning there are medicinal solutions. My vision of a Nuclear Apocalpyse is essentially Fallout 3, give or take some aspects. Thus, I vote Nuclear Apocalypse.
@AngelN7 said:
I think I can live in a post-nuclear world without so much trouble ,the world of Fallout 3 seems more peacefull than X game world with zombies , and zombie apocalypse is a pain in the ass if you don´t like to shoot people.
Only FO3 occurs hundreds of years after the fallout, after the radiation has gone down. GL trying to survive that shit right after the blast, no vaults to help you there.
Well If you can survive the blast (lucky you) , the only thing you need to worry about is to find clean or at least water that dosn´t kill you with radiation , weird monsters or "raiders" won´t exist until some years later maybe society will reamain sane, where in the zombie apocalypse you wouldn´t be able to sleep the first night zombies don´t stop chasing you but you can get away from radiation@AngelN7 said:
I think I can live in a post-nuclear world without so much trouble ,the world of Fallout 3 seems more peacefull than X game world with zombies , and zombie apocalypse is a pain in the ass if you don´t like to shoot people.Only FO3 occurs hundreds of years after the fallout, after the radiation has gone down. GL trying to survive that shit right after the blast, no vaults to help you there.
At least I can find some good food in the Zombie apocalypse. And imma barricade myself with VIDEO GAMES.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment