|
View Poll Results: Walking Dead or Fallout? | |||
Z-Day |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 25.93% |
Wasteland is my way |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
20 | 74.07% |
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Velika Gorica, Croatia
Posts: 117
|
![]() I gots a question: if you had to choose between a Zombocalypse and a Nuclear Apocalypse (fallout/mad max) to live in, which would you choose and why?
__________________
Founder of F.A.G., Free Abandonia Group |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#2 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Nuclear apocalypse.
Why? Fallout :thumbs:
__________________
"I want to be able to tell some poor girl i am going to feed off of, that she will see me in her dreams as a dinosaur" - DarthHelmet86 "that's what all jrpgs are about 0: intro 1: talk talk cry talk talk graphics talk talk, 2: boring jrpg generic turn based combat 3: walk map 4: goto 1 12390482309 times 5: outro" - _r.u.s.s. Last edited by Tomekk; 05-02-2010 at 10:52 PM. |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#3 | ||
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Swan River, Canada
Posts: 842
|
![]() i chose fallout for this simple reason;
Less threats. There could be thousands of zombies ina single area, where as in the Nuclear world you'll only have a few raiders or something. Sure, radiation would be there and in the real world none of us (or atleast, you gusy that live in cities) would live long enough to even see the effects of radioactive fallout, but for smaller populated areas liek my town i'd get to see general anarchy take over. Remember, we'd live in the immidiate aftermath of world War 3, not years later like the Fallout games!
__________________
Kugarfang: o hai guiz im trying to find this techno song from the radio and it goes like this: DUN duuuunnnn dudududududun SPLOOSH duuunnnnn We ate the horse. |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#4 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Capital Federal, Argentina
Posts: 582
|
![]() No love for the stiffs
|
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#5 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posts: 2,236
|
![]() If the bombs would drop, the future might not, and probably wont be, anything like Mad Max or Fallout.
Go see a film called "Threads". I've heard its pretty horrifying. |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#6 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 176
|
![]() This is pretty much choosing weither you'd like to freeze to death or be burned to death. Both are unpleasant as heck, and you don't what 'em to happen.
That aside, a nuclear apoc would be easier to survive in. |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#7 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Capital Federal, Argentina
Posts: 582
|
![]() Quote:
Well, not really, radiactivity and nuclear winter sucks... but at least, the odds are that your dead would be a lot more impersonal than in a zombie apocalypse.. I mean, I would prefer to die because of impersonal radiation poisoning or out of hunger than being devoured by a ravenous zombie! |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#8 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,021
|
![]() fallout! moar meat on some people!
|
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#9 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England
Posts: 380
|
![]() Zombi-pocalypse for me.
No radioactivity, plenty of food, fuel and water for survival. Also, there's a rather clear end-game... get rid of the zombies, and the world is okay again. Nukes covering everything would kinda spoil the earth a bit, doncha think? |
||
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#10 | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 59
|
![]() I voted for Nuclear apocalypse but I now realise that I'd prefer a zombie one. I've always wanted to loot a supermarket in a zombie apocalypse (Cliched much?).
|
||
![]() ![]() |
|