Surviving a Zombie Apocalypse vs a Nuclear Apocalypse.

  • 79 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for smashedcontrollers
SmasheControllers

2951

Forum Posts

25972

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#1  Edited By SmasheControllers

Which post-apocalyptic world would you rather live in?

In the Zombie Apocalypse, it would be slow zombie and in the Nuclear Apocalypse

Avatar image for smashedcontrollers
SmasheControllers

2951

Forum Posts

25972

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#2  Edited By SmasheControllers

Which post-apocalyptic world would you rather live in?

Avatar image for letsrockbaby
LetsRockBaby

223

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By LetsRockBaby

Nuclear apocalypse sounds less fucked. At least there will be a lot less people trying to eat me than in a zombie apocalypse.

Avatar image for marz
Marz

6096

Forum Posts

755

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 11

#4  Edited By Marz

post nuclear, at least there seems to be some semblance of a society left in the world.

Avatar image for meierthered
MeierTheRed

6081

Forum Posts

1701

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By MeierTheRed

Post apocalyptic, fuck zombies.

Avatar image for beachthunder
BeachThunder

15252

Forum Posts

312177

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 25

#6  Edited By BeachThunder

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.

Avatar image for thedudeofgaming
TheDudeOfGaming

6116

Forum Posts

47173

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By TheDudeOfGaming

I'd rather live in neither cause I'd be the first to die. But nuclear post-apocalypse seems easier to survive in.

Avatar image for hargreaves93
Hargreaves93

267

Forum Posts

1163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#8  Edited By Hargreaves93

Can the zombies run?

Avatar image for applet0n
applet0n

702

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By applet0n

The radiation is what does it for me. 
Also, in a zombie apocalypse infrastructure (roads etc) will still be intact and usable.

Zombies for sure.

Avatar image for sesquipedalophobe
sesquipedalophobe

184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Zombapocalypse. It would give me an excuse to wear a suit and sport a sword.

Avatar image for shockd
ShockD

2487

Forum Posts

16743

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By ShockD

Zombies, I won't like the nuclear winter.

Avatar image for mcghee
McGhee

6128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#12  Edited By McGhee

Zombies can be fought. Not much you can do about getting rained on by fallout and having your water table polluted.

Avatar image for penguindust
penguindust

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#13  Edited By penguindust

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.

Avatar image for apoptosis61
apoptosis61

568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By apoptosis61

zombie apocalypse 
 
KICK SOME ROTTEN ASSES

Avatar image for smashedcontrollers
SmasheControllers

2951

Forum Posts

25972

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

@Hargreaves93: The Zombies are more RE or Dead Rising zombies not Left 4 Dead.

Avatar image for ze_ro
ze_ro

182

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By ze_ro

Idc whichever, just bring it...

Avatar image for mikemcn
mikemcn

8642

Forum Posts

4863

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 8

#17  Edited By mikemcn

Always the Zombocolypse.

@PenguinDust said:

You can't kill cancer with a headshot.

Technically you can, but it sorta defeats the purpose if the patient is dead.

Avatar image for mezza
MezZa

3226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#18  Edited By MezZa

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.

Avatar image for fateofnever
FateOfNever

1923

Forum Posts

3165

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#19  Edited By FateOfNever

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.

Avatar image for benjaebe
benjaebe

2868

Forum Posts

7204

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

#20  Edited By benjaebe

Zombocalypse, of course. Nuclear winter would fuck over the earth and any sort of resources you could have. Zombies might be a greater threat in the short term, but a nuclear apocalypse would pretty much ruin any sort of long term survival chances.

Avatar image for vexxan
Vexxan

4642

Forum Posts

943

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#21  Edited By Vexxan

Zombie; in the long run there's actually a chance we'll make it. If the world got nuked it would be so fucked from all the radioactive shizzle.

Avatar image for blackout62
Blackout62

2241

Forum Posts

84

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#22  Edited By Blackout62

Zombie apocalypse, more ability to recover and less chance of irreparably harming the Earth.

Avatar image for hailinel
Hailinel

25785

Forum Posts

219681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 28

#23  Edited By Hailinel

In a zombie apocalypse, not only would I have to worry about being murdered by zombies, but also becoming a zombie myself. At least, in a nuclear apocalypse, my death would be relatively blissful in its permanence.

Avatar image for the_official_japanese_teabag
the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG

4312

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Zombie Apocalypse definately. 

Avatar image for thefreeman
TheFreeMan

2712

Forum Posts

1120

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#25  Edited By TheFreeMan

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.

Avatar image for randominternetuser
RandomInternetUser

6805

Forum Posts

769

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Zombies, easily.

Avatar image for strife777
Strife777

2103

Forum Posts

347

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#27  Edited By Strife777

Not sure. Zombie apocalypse can be better if you have the right skills, since only people have been affected. Post-Nuclear though, a lot of things are going to be obliterated, making resources harder to find.

Edit: Oh and in a zombie apocalypse, you can kill shit.

Avatar image for theunsavedhero
TheUnsavedHero

1320

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#28  Edited By TheUnsavedHero

Nuclear. Killing zombies would get extremely tiresome and useless after about three weeks. They would've all rotted away by then.

Avatar image for thegreatguero
TheGreatGuero

8881

Forum Posts

918

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#29  Edited By TheGreatGuero

Post-nuclear, totally. I love Fallout!

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

#30  Edited By Video_Game_King

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?

Avatar image for wealllikepie
wealllikepie

819

Forum Posts

3045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 4

#31  Edited By wealllikepie

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

Avatar image for hargreaves93
Hargreaves93

267

Forum Posts

1163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#32  Edited By Hargreaves93
@SmasheControllers said:

@Hargreaves93: The Zombies are more RE or Dead Rising zombies not Left 4 Dead.

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.
Avatar image for conzed92
Conzed92

188

Forum Posts

81

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#33  Edited By Conzed92

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?

Avatar image for smashedcontrollers
SmasheControllers

2951

Forum Posts

25972

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

Nuclear Zombie Apocalypse, Think about it!

Avatar image for awesomeusername
awesomeusername

4651

Forum Posts

242

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#35  Edited By awesomeusername

Zombies> Deathclaws

Avatar image for mooseymcman
MooseyMcMan

12740

Forum Posts

5545

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#36  Edited By MooseyMcMan

The zombies will die off after a month or two from lack of food. Nuclear fallout lasts for years. 

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

#37  Edited By Sooty

Zombies, as long as they aren't as agile as the infected in 28 Days Later.

Avatar image for gerhabio
Gerhabio

1996

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

#38  Edited By Gerhabio

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.

Avatar image for mrklorox
MrKlorox

11220

Forum Posts

1071

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By MrKlorox

They're the same thing in Stalker.

Avatar image for rivend3ll
RivenD3ll

98

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By RivenD3ll

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.

Avatar image for angeln7
AngelN7

3001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#41  Edited By AngelN7

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.

Avatar image for dystopiax
DystopiaX

5803

Forum Posts

416

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By DystopiaX

@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.

Avatar image for jeust
Jeust

11739

Forum Posts

15085

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 15

#43  Edited By Jeust

Zombie apocalypse. Better chance of survival. 

Avatar image for sooperspy
Sooperspy

6485

Forum Posts

935

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 17

#44  Edited By Sooperspy

Zombocalypse. Seems easier to live with zombies than with radiation.

Avatar image for angeln7
AngelN7

3001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#45  Edited By AngelN7
@DystopiaX said:

@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
Avatar image for benpicko
benpicko

2020

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#46  Edited By benpicko

Zombies. Much easier.

Avatar image for themangalist
themangalist

1870

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By themangalist

At least I can find some good food in the Zombie apocalypse. And imma barricade myself with VIDEO GAMES.

Avatar image for iam3green
iam3green

14368

Forum Posts

350

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By iam3green

zombies would be better i think. there would be radiation everywhere and you can end up dieing from getting to much of that. i would think it would be easier to be around also.

Avatar image for trulyalive
trulyalive

1200

Forum Posts

5592

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 17

#49  Edited By trulyalive

Dude, I saw The Road and decided I never want to fucking see it again. Why would I want to live that shit?

Zombies.

Avatar image for fobwashed
fobwashed

2815

Forum Posts

388

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 12

#50  Edited By fobwashed

I'd rather die by zombie over a slow agonizing death by radiation. Also, at least zombies I can fight. Radiation is everywhere including in your water and food. No dice grandma.