The Spawning Dead
So, I don't watch the show and I only read two or so volumes of the comic, therefore I don't know how Robert Kirkman/AMC handle it there, but something that really annoys/confuses/irritates me is, that there are still so many and so well-nourished walkers spawing everywhere and running around in hordes. It's two years in the apocalypse, where do they get their food? They roam around in abandoned places and forests the whole day. Are there people coming by on a daily basis to let themselves get eaten?
Yes, I know, why am I demanding realism in a videogame about zombies, shouldn't do that. Also it's "The Walking Dead" - I know it's got to feature rotting growling people with messy hair, but in my opinion TT should approach it differently now, if they continue the story from this point in time. Less running from suddenly appearing walkers, less walkers at all. Give the idea about infection and losing people to it another facet, a bit more subtlety and a bit more concept. Maybe the spreading infection in a commune or town-like society, like what happened to Crawford. Or the plan to clear a whole area from walkers for good. I don't know. I don't want a spawning dead festival for season 3, it's getting kinda ridiculous.
What are your thoughts? How is this handled in the show/comics? How should it be handled in the game?
Comments
Well, the zombies dont die if they dont eat
Maybe its just new walkers your seeing that look well nourished cuase if you look at the older ones their skinnier and rotted away
They can die from starvation i think, but it takes a lot of time
They do, it takes time but they can deteriorate and essentially waste away into nothing.
It's fiction, so I don't expect it to be too realistic. But biologically, walkers would be much more decayed. If you think about all the maggots that are crawling inside them and feasting on the dead flesh, months of just that alone with break down parts of their bodies. They do need to eat, they just waste away for a long time if there isn't any access to food. I'd imagine this would make them weaker. And think about the weather- sure, the series has shown that the cold slows walkers down. But the heat? I think it would have an effect too.
was it in kirkmans worlds or Romeros that said that the infection kills animals? i mean maggots and all that (are they animals or they they called something else) would die if they consume the virus no??? idk just me thinkin'
Definitely not Kirkman's, the infection is exclusive to humans in TWD universe.
One of my favorite aspects of 28 Days Later is that it's explained that the infected starve after a while, making the entire exposure only a temporary event in the timeline of the human species. Something that'll blow over by year's end, it made the situation all the more relatable and therefore terrifying. Seeing as though even something like bloodthirsty ravenous proto-zombies need to eat to survive.
The devil's in the details.
Yes, that’s it.
I think the use of walkers in the game lost it’s credibiltiy and it’s creativity with season 2. The story goes like that: 1. we go somewhere, 2. some plot point happens, 3. suddenly walkers appear everywhere and we have to flee – rinse and repeat. It was fine with me in season 1 – the omnipresence of walkers was credible, because it was the beginning phase of the apocalypse. And it was surprising and actually scary, like in the station building. But now it’s like a Pokemon game, walkers turned into randomly appearing annoying buggers – A wild zombie appeared! Go Clementine!
Okay, thanks, that's what I thought. Like the boy on the attic in season one. I think he originally died of thirst, and grew weaker as a walker. It's inconsequential that we don't come across starved walkers like him, no? And if they'd let a character say something like: “The walkers are losening their strenght due to... [insert some reason].” – it would at least explain why Clementine manages to fight off several of them single-handed.
yeah shouldve phrased it better. i meant the infection or virus, however it started, it doesnt affect animals how it affected humans in the beginning nor in the future. there is no zombie animals, but this walkers seem just to consume everything, i swear the people on the have something against horses :,( , but i think i heard that kirkman said that if a walker bit an animal but it managed to get away the infection wouldnt turn it, it would just kill him. it.
This is elaborated on in the comics, where it's shown that walkers do indeed 'starve' and decay, but the idea is that whatever makes them reanimate in the first place also slows down that process heavily. There's a few notable examples in the comic, such as them finding a walker that's so malnourished that it's unable to even open it's mouth to eat, essentially becoming docile as a result. Not only does 'starvation' and decay take a long time, it's also dependent on their activity. Less active walkers that just sit around and aren't stimulated by anything waste away quicker than ones that are out and about and eating people. Long story short: the more 'lively' they are, the even slower the process.
It's around the 2 year mark in the comics that signs of weakness/decay start showing, although in fairly small numbers. You start seeing more zombies like the boy in the attic, but they're still few and far between for the most part. Given that the game is currently 2 years in, the timeline fits. But it's not until 3-4 years in that weakness/decay/starvation really starts to become noticeable in large numbers. Where the comics are currently, they are a low-level/passive threat, since most of the remaining zombies have since grouped into herds, which survivors have taken to simply diverting away from their camps/communities, rather than trying to take them all out. They're also incredibly bony and decayed by that point as well, although it's much easier and quicker to draw them differently in a comic book than it is to create entirely new models for a game.