Zombie games should stop being made.

I don't know how to change formats... PRO'S CASE 1) scenario. Pro agrees that the scenario has become quite repetetive. However, he uses "walking dead" as an example for games that vary from the original. I think he means "WD: survival instinct" here and not "the walking dead". "The walking dead" was incredibly boring and bad, not an example of a good zombie game overall. Also, he DOES witness the outbreak, so it can't be used as an example (you were probably referring to the series, right?). And... Walking dead survival instinct..? well...zombie gamers don't really talkabout that: You say we should give them another chance to come up with better scenario's, I say we have seen them fail for long enough. They should focus on making games like the last of us, instead of going for the same zombies we have already seen for too long. It will be easier to write a better scenario too, as none will have been invented for those particular creatures yet. 2) Creative effort You kindof agreed here, saying that there isn't a reason to make those weapons. But then you said "at this point in time". Are you insinuating there will ever be a zombie outbreak? Such a thing would never look like it did in movies, and none of us gamers would be able to participate. But this hypothetical theory is useless. Just because it's fun I'll get into it: Max Brooks has said in his "the zombie survival guide" that short katana's would be the best weapon for killing zombies. The average man can afford that weapon, so if you really want to get prepared, buy that and not dead rising. 3) Takes skill Pro conceded. 4) They still sell Yes, they do. All games are fun, and most gamers do love zombies. However, they get dissapointed most of the time. It sells because people feel like killing zombies, not for anything else. Killing zombies can be fun. But Dead Rising provides nothing more than that. It's almost a throwaway game. Only the more improved games like Last of Us can make record breaking sales, which is why the people making games should lean towards that instead of going for the classic zombie killing. CON'S CASE 1) Not as good as they used to be. I held up that sole example, but by this argument I mean that it is slowly going downhill the past 5 years in general. Resident evil 6 was an exception to this. It proved to get a great 7.9/10 by IGN: But I believe the next generation of resident evil will not hold up to expectations. Comparing the game to resident evil 4 though, it was once asked in a poll: http://www.gamefaqs.com... Although only about 300 people voted, RE4 got 2/3 of the votes. 2) serves best as extra content Sorry for my mistake - it's not necessarily DLC, but simply an extra mode. My point with DayZ was that its multiplayer mode will die out, and that process happens gradually. First off, not all people who buy Arma will buy DayZ, but they made up for that by getting new zombie addicts to play their game. That made sure they had initial success. But the reason this game is fun is because of the encounters with other players. Playing this game alone would not be fun. Most of DayZ's players will quit at some point though, and in the end, the players that are left will have to quit too as there is a much smaller community. That is what the gamer always does: move on. Multiplayer games die out most of the times, unless they keep on upgrading them. Even games that give the player exactly what they want (zombie survival) will die out if they don't update it constantly with new content. War thunder is currently working really hard to preserve its great community. Unless DayZ does the same thing and adds bigger worlds, new weapons and more possibilities for the player, it can be seen as a GTA map: you grow tired of it. Over to Con!