Cooperative games are still rare. I have only played a couple of them and these are my favorite two. Even though they feel and play very differently, there is no denying how similar they are. This brief review discusses the similarities and some other aspects of these games.


Theme

Both games have great themes. The Arthurian Legends have inspired books, movies, games, etc... over time and remains fresh and surprising. The threat of an infectious disease epidemic is present in our daily lives, especially in an age of bioterrorism and, more importantly, where several million people live under fertile situation for the spread of these diseases (low income, poor level of education, precarious living-condition... you name it). So, Pandemic's theme is current and has also been source of inspiration.

Both games do an amazing job integrating the theme with the mechanics and gameplay.

I think Pandemic has a more appealing theme as it has not been as much explored as Shadow's at least regarding boardgames.


Gameplay

There are obvious similarities between the two games:

1 - Cooperative
2 - Each turn you do a good and an evil thing
3 - Two decks
4 - The white cards go into the players hands
5 - The black cards are imediately placed against the players

It is interesting however how even aspects that may seem disparate at first also keep amazing resemblance. For example, the conditions for defeat:

1 - Seven or more black swords vs eighth outbreak. These both are usually reached by events originated from the black deck and they have a lasting effect on the game as, in general, once black swords are on the board or the outbreak marker is moved, they cannot be directly changed anymore. Shadows allows you to indirectly change the allegiance of the swords by unmasking the traitor, for example, but, as a concept I think they work similarly to each other.

2 - Twelfth catapult vs exhaustion of cubes of a given color. These are similar because these pieces are physically added to the board and can be directly fought and physically removed. They are there purely to put pressure on the players. The players don't defeat these obstacles to get closer to winning the game. They do that to delay defeat and to buy time.

3 - Equal or greater number of black swords at the end of the game vs exhaution of the players' deck. These are basically the clock that is ticking for each game. If they are reached, you have not completed enough quests or you have not found enough cures.

4 - Death of all loyal knights is unique to Shadows, even though I have yet to see a game end this way.

A close look also reveals that the winning conditions are not very different.

The white swords are gained through quests which are ultimately won by managing to put together the right combination of cards. Cures are found the same way.


Random Thoughts

The duration and number of players are generally better in Pandemic as it is usually easier to put together 2-4 people to play for 30-45 minutes than to find 5-6 people (arguably the sweet spot for Shadows) to play for a little over one hour. Plus, the play is rough since it is hard for a newbie to play the traitor. Pandemic is also easier to learn.

Shadows has the better bits even though Pandemic does also a great job in this department too.

The variable player abilities add a lot of flavor and strategic depth to both games helping them to stay fresh.

Pandemic's victorious endgame is a bit better. Shadows feels awkward sometimes as you need to wait some quests to be lost so you can secure vitory. Also, with the game finishing if the players' deck gets exhausted, Pandemic has a more reliable duration. Shadows can, on occasion, drag for a bit.

Even though both games are highly thematic, a cynic can put either one down. For example: "how come to defeat Lancelot I need a fullhouse?", preferring to ignore the entirely asymetry of Shadow's deck and the strength of the value of the cards as the quest may end prematurely by the board filling up with Lancelot cards and the quest still being won by the player and the rarity of cards of higher numbers. The same could be said for Pandemic as you need "five-of-a-kind" to find the cure, plus, the basic players' deck is almost identical to a regular deck of cards.


Why do these games work?

Shadows Over Camelot works because of the traitor. It raises the level of tension as the players are always wondering if somebody is sabotaging their plans and if two swords will turn black in the end.

Pandemic works because of the Epidemics card. It increases the risk of outbreaks by making sure that the same cities are always at the top of the deck and getting reinfected and it brings a random city into play which was not a threat up to that point and comes to the game with the risk of immediately outbreaking.

One could fairly say that Shadows Over Camelot is not a true cooperative game. On the other hand, the presence of the traitor is highly congruent with the theme and may make the game more replayable than a "true" cooperative game is.


Conclusion

These great games have a lot in common but each provides an entirely different experience. Shadows Over Camelot has been established as one of the best boardgames and Pandemic has had a very solid start but still needs to pass the test of time.

I think Pandemic belongs in every gamers collection but I can't recommend both games enough.