If vampires existed would they be able to survive a large scale zombie outbreak?
My belief is that they would not as vampires tend to hunt/ live alone whereas zombies (while having no stucture) tend to hunt in packs (or some weird equivelant whereby there are many going after a single target). So therefore I believe zombies would win by sheer numbers and the fact that they won't slow down or feel pain.

Taxi Driver:
I voted crabs, because I just can't seem to get rid of mine.

I would have put an option for Taxi Driver in but then nothing else would get any votes

What kind of Vampires are we talking about? "Castlevania" Vampires (of which there have been, like, 4 different vampires throughout the entire series), who all tend to be masters of every possible weapon and have magical powers, "Hellsing" Vampires, where they tend to be either far to weak or far to powerful (Or Alucard, who rapes everything), or are we talking about generic myth vampires? If either of the first two, then vampires.

Mstrswrd:
What kind of Vampires are we talking about? "Castlevania" Vampires (of which there have been, like, 4 different vampires throughout the entire series), who all tend to be masters of every possible weapon and have magical powers, "Hellsing" Vampires, where they tend to be either far to weak or far to powerful (Or Alucard, who rapes everything), or are we talking about generic myth vampires? If either of the first two, then vampires.

generic myth vampires v.s. generic myth zombies

(ZHU) Michael:

generic myth vampires v.s. generic myth zombies

Okay, then... I still go with Vampires. Even in myth, they were stronger, faster, usually wiser (because of age), and were usually smarter (excluding the instict driven just turned phase). Zombies just kind of... limped. Slowly.

Do I even need to say it?

Hell I like saying the word, I'll just say it anyway.

Crabs.
I voted for Crabs.

Zombies could survive without blood. And eat the vampires when they got weak.

Although if a vampire bit a zombie, would you get a vampire/zombie hybrid? A zompire or a vambie? They would kickass.

The Iron Ninja:
Do I even need to say it?

Hell I like saying the word, I'll just say it anyway.

Crabs.
I voted for Crabs.

ok i got what i wanted no need for this thread now

Are these intelligent zombies, or just your run of the mill brainless brain munchers? Are there any normal people both parties to feed on?

TomNook:
Are these intelligent zombies, or just your run of the mill brainless brain munchers? Are there any normal people both parties to feed on?

it's a large scale outbreak so there are people but very few and they're spread out

needausername:
Zombies could survive without blood. And eat the vampires when they got weak.

Although if a vampire bit a zombie, would you get a vampire/zombie hybrid? A zompire or a vambie? They would kickass.

since zombies blood doesn't circulate the vampire disease would have no effect

Do you mean Dawn of the Dead slow zombies or 28 Days Later zombies?

*Looks at the poll*
This is an outrage!
How can Vampires possibly be equal to Crabs?
Why... they don't even have pincers.
Have you ever seen a Vampire dance? It's pathetic, Zombies can hold their own I'll admit.
But a Crab, a Crab is the master of dance.

Dude, what about vampire crabs?

Oh wait... they exist. You need a special shampoo for that kind... :\

I think I just pwned my own idea. :(

OuroborosChoked:
Dude, what about vampire crabs?

Oh wait... they exist. You need a special shampoo for that kind... :\

I think I just pwned my own idea. :(

There there..
*pats you on the back in a sympathetic fashion*

Vote for Crabs.
For as I always say:
"A vote for crabs is a vote for... crabs..."

needausername:
Zombies could survive without blood. And eat the vampires when they got weak.

Although if a vampire bit a zombie, would you get a vampire/zombie hybrid? A zompire or a vambie? They would kickass.

I was thinking the same thing. But maybe like a Vampire that got bitten by a zombie, so it was really like a Zombified Vampire. Beware the Un-undead. Double undead... So cool.

And crabs? That's just silly. Now zombified crabs and we can talk.

*looks at the poll again*
Ah yes... excellent.

The crabs will rule this thread yet.

EnzoHonda:

needausername:
Zombies could survive without blood. And eat the vampires when they got weak.

Although if a vampire bit a zombie, would you get a vampire/zombie hybrid? A zompire or a vambie? They would kickass.

I was thinking the same thing. But maybe like a Vampire that got bitten by a zombie, so it was really like a Zombified Vampire. Beware the Un-undead. Double undead... So cool.

And crabs? That's just silly. Now zombified crabs and we can talk.

Couldn't the vampires just rip the zombies to shreds? Or are we talking Return of the Living Dead zombies? You know, all the parts keep moving on their own...

'Course, if you count 28 Days Later as a zombie movie (I don't, personally), they still need to eat...

Sweet sweet crabs.

All hail the crab masters!

Zombie Badger:
Do you mean Dawn of the Dead slow zombies or 28 Days Later zombies?

There not really zombies in 28 dyas later just people infected with like a super version of rapies

Crabs all the way, you cant stop crabs!! there constantly strafeing!

I'd quite like to know how anyone feels a crab could win against either Zombies or Vampires - they lack the required sentience to survive against either threat, let alone wage war against them.

Yeah, I'm gonna say it;

Crabs suck. At least, at anything other than being a crab. And they aren't that great at that, awkward little things.

Oh yeah, I went there.

I voted vampires - providing that these creatures need not fear infection from the zombie hordes, I believe they could quite easily overpower the living dead.

In fact, seeing as a group of school kids and a P.E. teacher were able to in Dance of the Dead, I believe that one or two vampires could very easily kick the decomposing crap out of a town full of zombies. So, providing the vampires can feed once or twice during the outbreak, then I think that they wouldn't need to 'survive', their priority should be to destroy the zombies.

*Sigh*, I feel less smarterer for even discussing this.

Duskwaith:
super version of rapies

...*childish snigger*

Rape-ies!

Yeah, this discussion has ruined my brain.

Last Blood much?

Zombies, because they don't have the fatal "need moar blood" think going on.

Vampires that have been bitten by zombies, or the other way around. They're both too good to choose from.

Another zombie thread? Oh how positively wonderful.

Vampires would win. They've got a higher intelligence generally and could therefore put aside differences to work for the good of survival. They'd corral uninfected humans together and keep them safe as a source of food (only taking as much as necessary so the humans don't die, thereby giving them an unlimited feeding source), and from there they could battle the zombies with the brains, something the zombies hunger for but don't have.

Assuming we're talking about slow scufflers as opposed to "OMG That zombie's running along the wall on all fours and JESUS CHRIST IT BIT ME AND OH GOD MY LEGS!" kind of zombies.

Amnestic:
Another zombie thread? Oh how positively wonderful.

Vampires would win. They've got a higher intelligence generally and could therefore put aside differences to work for the good of survival. They'd corral uninfected humans together and keep them safe as a source of food (only taking as much as necessary so the humans don't die, thereby giving them an unlimited feeding source), and from there they could battle the zombies with the brains, something the zombies hunger for but don't have.

Assuming we're talking about slow scufflers as opposed to "OMG That zombie's running along the wall on all fours and JESUS CHRIST IT BIT ME AND OH GOD MY LEGS!" kind of zombies.

I think you might be missing where the true power of zombies comes from: numbers. Sure, individual zombies are nothing. Anyone taken down by one zombie on flat ground pretty much deserves it... but nobody beats the hoarde... except maybe that guy from Dead Rising.

Now, if we're talking armies of vampires versus the undead masses*... that's an interesting concept...

EDIT: Sorry. Forgot vampires are undead, too. Change that to shuffling hoarde. Sounds better.

OuroborosChoked:

Amnestic:
Another zombie thread? Oh how positively wonderful.

Vampires would win. They've got a higher intelligence generally and could therefore put aside differences to work for the good of survival. They'd corral uninfected humans together and keep them safe as a source of food (only taking as much as necessary so the humans don't die, thereby giving them an unlimited feeding source), and from there they could battle the zombies with the brains, something the zombies hunger for but don't have.

Assuming we're talking about slow scufflers as opposed to "OMG That zombie's running along the wall on all fours and JESUS CHRIST IT BIT ME AND OH GOD MY LEGS!" kind of zombies.

I think you might be missing where the true power of zombies comes from: numbers. Sure, individual zombies are nothing. Anyone taken down by one zombie on flat ground pretty much deserves it... but nobody beats the hoarde... except maybe that guy from Dead Rising.

Now, if we're talking armies of vampires versus the undead masses*... that's an interesting concept...

EDIT: Sorry. Forgot vampires are undead, too. Change that to shuffling hoarde. Sounds better.

I still reckon they'd win out in the end. Vampires aren't slouches either remember, super human strength and whatnot. If they could bottleneck the stupid zombies (quite easy all things considered) then numbers become pointless as all the vampires have to focus on is one at a time, not to mention traps that could be laid in place. No, I definetly think the thing vampires would fear most in a zombie uprising would be: Failure to work together and lack of food. If they solved these two problems as I described above, I reckon they could wait out/survive a zombie uprising with relative ease.

I'm not really sure what "classical" vampires are these days. Are we talking...D&D? Buffy? Dracula? There's so many versions that it's a little hard to decide really.

(ZHU) Michael:
If vampires existed would they be able to survive a large scale zombie outbreak?
My belief is that they would not as vampires tend to hunt/ live alone whereas zombies (while having no stucture) tend to hunt in packs (or some weird equivelant whereby there are many going after a single target). So therefore I believe zombies would win by sheer numbers and the fact that they won't slow down or feel pain.

Now, are these the vampires that can only be killed by a stake through the heart or decapitation or something, or are they highly damageable? If they are the former, there's no doubt that the vampires would win; they're infinitely smarter than zombies, plus they won't have to worry about even getting seriously hurt by the zombies. Also, if the vampires can transform into clouds of gas and bats and wolves and such, then the zombies obviously don't stand a chance.

Vampires ftw.

Crabs, though.....Hmmm.....Tough choice......

Amnestic:

I'm not really sure what "classical" vampires are these days. Are we talking...D&D? Buffy? Dracula? There's so many versions that it's a little hard to decide really.

I had the same problem, too. Too many interpretations of what zombies can do. Using the Return of the Living Dead example again, the only way to get rid of them was to incinerate them... and god help you if it rained on a cemetary with that smoke in the air.

I vote we go for bloodlines type vampire i.e ones that can withstand bashing damage with ease (bullets count as bashing in this case) and regenerate damage done, slashing damage is more difficult but still regenerates (possible to kill if you cut them faster then regeneration). Aggravated does major damage (we're talking sunlight, fire and the supernatural-eg werewolf claws- here) and takes longer to regenerate.

Either that or Ye Olde Rising Corpse type that breaks out of its coffin each night to hunt for blood and can only be slain with a stake thought the heart, its head cut off and turned backwards in the coffin, mouth stuffed with rosemary and coffin chucked into a running stream.

Either way Vamps should win if the problem of food can be counteracted (do zombies distinguish between vamps and humans? I mean vamps are already dead is dead flesh/brains as yummy?).

Zombies don't need to feed, they just like to; unlike vampires. Besides Zombies have no real blood so the vampires would starve to death. Also, why is Crabs an option? You were just trying to rope in Iron Ninja weren't you.

Are they regular crabs, the sort that you eat; or big ones, like Japanese Spider crabs? Or a mixture? And are they likely to receive tacit support from the rest of the crustaceans? Also, vampire crabs. Who are they fighting for? 'Cause they look angry.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7209992

Zombies don't need to feed, they just like to

Surely they have to feed, what animates them and allows them movement if not the flesh/braaaaaaaaaains that they feed upon?

Besides Zombies have no real blood so the vampires would starve to death.

addressed in my post. Besides, even if all the humans were zombies, vampires have been known to be able to live on animal blood in certain incarnations.

Zombies are an unstoppable force and they come in so many varieties that there is not a single solution to their extermination.

conqueror Kenny:
Zombies don't need to feed, they just like to; unlike vampires. Besides Zombies have no real blood so the vampires would starve to death. Also, why is Crabs an option? You were just trying to rope in Iron Ninja weren't you.

Discworld vampires don't need blood. In fact, most vampire characters in the books are "Black Ribboners" - they've taken a pledge to drink "not one drop" of blood. In order to not drink blood, though... they find some other addiction, like photography or coffee...

Mstrswrd:
Zombies just kind of... limped. Slowly.

Zombies zombie. They zombie around looking for people to kill. It's a verb now.