Games That Made Other Games Obsolete

In another discussion here, I pondered the games that I keep that I will never play again. In some cases, it is because I now own a game that renders another game in my collection completely obsolete.

For example, FFG's edition of Fury of Dracula is a similar game to Undead, only it's just a better game in every way possible. Better mechanics, better components, and no need for a neutral third player to supervise a double-blind aspect. I can't see a reason to ever play Undead again. And some people feel that FFG's Fury of Dracula is also completely superior to the original from Games Workshop.

So what other games have pushed games into obsolescence? Do you still have the older game? And if so, why? And are there any cases where your older game is still better than the newer one?

I never bought Shadows Over Camelot, but I played it about ten times before losing interest. Battlestar Galactica is the exact same kind of game, only much better. Better mechanics, stronger theme, etc., though I have to admit that Shadows Over Camelot is still a very attractive game with nice components.

Cults Across America replaces Creatures and Cultists, and even borrows a couple of jokes from it in the process.

On the other hand, Innsmouth Escape is fairly similar to FFG's Fury of Dracula, but the falls short in terms of game balance and some of the components. And The Vesuvius Incident is an overly complex version of Intruder that flounders under the weight of all the extra rules.

Marvel Heroscape pretty much made Heroclix obsolete for me. I really enjoyed the Clix system, but its price point was way too high. I was able to buy Marvel Heroscape and get a lot more stuff.

I guess it came down to a case of cost vs. enjoyment. Clix just cost too damn much for me to really enjoy.

Shellhead wrote:

And some people feel that FFG's Fury of Dracula is also completely superior to the original from Games Workshop.

And some people feel completely the opposite.

MattDP wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

And some people feel that FFG's Fury of Dracula is also completely superior to the original from Games Workshop.

And some people feel completely the opposite.

But they would agree that if you have one, you don't need the other, which is what this thread is about- regardless of when the two games came out.

I got rid of ASL starter kits when a budy bought conflict of heroes.

I got rid of Memoir 44 when I got C&C:A

I got rid of Red Star Rising because Case Blue and Europe Engulfed did it better through certain scenarios.

I got rid of lord of the rings risk after playing war of the ring

My group sold off Warhammer Quest when Descent added Road to Legend.

I've been wanting to sell/trade Lion of the North ever since I tried Ben Hull's Musket & Pike system.


-Will

Can't think of any off the top of my head, but I just have to say "Million Dollar Mimring" is the funniest username ever.

Actually maybe World of Warcraft the adventure game killed Retern of the heroes for me. Return's biggest strength over the other adventure games was length, and now that's been beaten.

For me the new Cosmic owns all others, but I can definitely see others disagreeing.

I think few people would argue that the old Arkham Horror was better.

NeonPeon wrote:

For me the new Cosmic owns all others, but I can definitely see others disagreeing.

I think few people would argue that the old Arkham Horror was better.

I agree on both counts. However, the old Arkham Horror did have a few advantages: fast set-up and takedown time, plus it was small enough to fit on almost any table.

It may be an unfair one, and one I'm not happy about, but Descent rendered Doom The Boardgame obsolete.

I have heard it said often that Prophecy makes Talisman obsolete, but I don't agree. Yes, they are closely aligned in concept and Prophecy does have a clever movement system and rules for adding abilities to your character, however, to me they still have a different enough flavour that I plan to keep both in my collection. I also think the flavours will diverge even more once the expansions to both games start hitting the shelves.

hancock.tom wrote:

But they would agree that if you have one, you don't need the other, which is what this thread is about- regardless of when the two games came out.

I got rid of ASL starter kits when a budy bought conflict of heroes.

CoH had the same effect on me , relegating my 2nd ASL collection to the nostalgia pile.

I got rid of Memoir 44 when I got C&C:A

I understand how you could prefer C&C:A to M44, although I must confess I'd've continued playing M44 for my WW2 fix if it hadn't been for Combat Commander.

BradH wrote:

It may be an unfair one, and one I'm not happy about, but Descent rendered Doom The Boardgame obsolete.

Judging by remarks in another recent thread here, nobody wants to see crossover rules between the two games. Personally, I liked the Doom one better. Descent layers in a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity, imo.

I sold Lord of the Rings Risk after playing War of the Ring.

History of the World fills the same role as vanilla Risk.

TI2 hasn't been played since I got TI3.

The game of LIFE has been obsoleted by the breakfast cereal.

Can't Stop -> Incan Gold

Titan -> Ticket to Ride Europe, Apples to Apples and about 5 other games that I have not played in a couple of years (and probably never will)

Shellhead wrote:

BradH wrote:

It may be an unfair one, and one I'm not happy about, but Descent rendered Doom The Boardgame obsolete.

Judging by remarks in another recent thread here, nobody wants to see crossover rules between the two games. Personally, I liked the Doom one better. Descent layers in a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity, imo.

What do you mean by crossover rules?