Why don't the zombies eat you?

nipples

Newbie
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
This is going to sound really stupid to a lot of people, but why don't the zombies eat you?

That is the whole reason that they are attacking you right? Its not like there is some sort of war that has been going on between humans and zombies since the beginning of time that causes them to attack any human they see. Well there has but I always assumed that was because the zombies wanted to eat humans.
 
Left 4 Dead has 'Infected', and they're all just angry, not hungry.
 
I actually liked that aspect, because isn't it supposed to be some severe form of rabies?

So it makes sense, they bite, scratch, kick.
 
Kinda like the 28 Days/Months zombies...I guess, although they wanted to eat you, they were just super pissed off cause I guess that's what being infected with rage does to you.
 
Like any rough up, they're gonna try and put you on your ass before they put the boot in?
 
They feast while you're on the ground, don't they?
 
They start kicking the shit out of you when you get to the ground.
 
Blokes that are full of rage follow you down to the ground. Perhaps they have bad arthritis in their knees and are worried about getting back up again?
 
I say they have bad rigormortis in their knees.
 
They all have restless leg syndrome. And it happens to go off... on your face.
 
How does one become Infected anyway? It doesn't seem that bites do this, as the players are bitten probably multiple times and they don't turn into Infected.

BTW, anyone else find it weird that you can take much more damage when you're being bitten, mauled and booted on the ground, than when you're standing? :p
 
The four survivors would have to be immune, for the sake of gameplay. Besides, Bill even touches some Infected blood in the opening No Mercy cutscene, without thinking twice about it.

The way the infection spreads is interesting though; the way the hordes attack, hardly any unarmed civilians would survive with just a scratch, and then become infected - the infected attack to kill, not to spread the infection. The infection is just a side-effect, if you like.

Seems to me that the Boomer would be the primary method of spreading the infection - whatever he spits on you, it'd enter the body in some way - through the eyes, mouth, or an open wound. However, even this attracts hundreds of infected. It seems anyone infected in this way would be killed before the virus has an effect.

Because of this, it seems pretty likely the effects would be almost instantaneous.
 
Maybe it's airborne ala I Am Legend bacteria?
 
Zombies would only eat when they had nothing to be angry towards. Thus a corpse might be eaten.

As for infection. toaster-man is right.
 
Lord of the Rings didnt have any dwarves because Snow White was nowhere to be found.
 
I propose we start a new steam group named 'Strange People Against Zombie Anorexia'.
 
The disease could easily be waterborne or only catchable by ingestion? OR, the survivors could be immune to it, it happens with lots of diseases (there's even prostitutes in africa that are immune to AIDS, so it's not that far fetched).
 
The immune theory makes more sense to me because they are four completely random people from all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds who would never hang out together in the real world.
 
L4D has no zombies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exjhztp_IQY

ZOMBIES;CHECK


IT'S THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE BRING FRIENDS

The truth of the matter is that they are watching their weight.
What do you think the real reason behind Boomer's vomiting is? Or do you just want to hide yourself from the truth?
When you're bombarded with images of the "perfect" zombie body that's literally just skin and bones, you'd force yourself to throw up too.
*image*
Really, should we be accepting the kind of image the media gives us when it's forcing healthy young zombies to starve themselves and vomit after every meal?
This is unacceptable.
<3
 
hey, you don't see them like,

CALL THESE YETI'S, WHATEVER YOU WANT

WEREWOLVES: CHECK

IT'S THE WEREWOLF APOCALYPSE, BRING FRIENDS
 
Really, my quote could support both arguments.
 
My point is, "freaks" is used just a derogatory term, as where zombies are a type of monster, it's not like they gave them a different monster term like in the case of fuzzy creatures "yetis"

So that arguement does not hold well, Francis is just referring to the infected ZOMBIES by a derogatory term.
If he called them "Wild Monkeys", would you argue them as being wild monkeys. NO.
 
" Yes son me and your mother met in New York... while killing an old man... good times."
 
Back
Top