All things related to historical and modern mysteries, mythical creatures, and cryptozoology!
Spooky, creepy, dark stuff; paranormal; occult; and lots more! Some threads not for the faint of heart! NO SET PROMOTION TOLERATED AT ALL. THAT IS AN INSTANT BAN! DON'T MESSAGE ME IF YOU WERE BLOCKED BECAUSE THAT IS MOST LIKELY WHY. If anyone gets blocked for any other reason, I …
Vampire Knight
Cyber City Oedo 808 part 3
DeceptiviewFilm said:
Ayala said:
Azkadellia said:
Zombies, I am disgraced to say, would beat Vampires. The thing about zombies is that they are mindless killing machines. They're efficient. They don't play with their food, they have but one objective. While not clearly as cool as a vampire, or powerful in other respects, zombies aren't hindered by anything but a head removal. They're also, at least in my book, a clear representation of modern culture, in so many ways. Sure, a zombie is going to get owned by a vampire one-on-one. But vampires, even as a collective, don't stand a chance against zombie masses. Also, if a zombie outbreak ever did occur, vampires would be fucked, as I'm pretty sure zombies don't count as a food source.
I don't know. I find most zombies to be more "pack-like" because that way they are more destructive and dangerous. Vampires are more solitary, so having all vampires work together would be...ridiculous? At least in my opinion.
Yet films like underworld and blade not to mention from dusk til dawn show vamps in packs and covens Lost Boys, Kindred. packs, Groups
I meant like vampires are more "cat-like" instead of "dog-like." They may roam in groups but they will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want, like what happened with Claudia, Louis, and Armand in "Interview With the Vampire" during the Theatre Des Vampire scenes. Vampires are not trustworthy.
Does that make sense?
Just got!!!
@batsdc27 is started playing that on Saturday loving it