head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
A Victorian-era RPG where the magic-versus-tech split and schematic mastery reward deep system optimization.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
The genre-defining loot ARPG whose builds, runes, and trade economy players still optimize decades later.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Diablo II leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Real-time mode is optional; turn-based eliminates all twitch
Diablo II
Positioning and potion reflexes, little else physical
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
All NPCs and factions follow scripted dialogue and combat routines
Diablo II
Monster AI is fully mappable
Diablo II leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Hidden technology diagrams and faction reaction thresholds create exploration unknowns
Diablo II
Loot RNG and random maps drive the grind
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Magic versus technology stat split and schematic discovery are deeply optimizable
Diablo II
Builds, breakpoints, rune economy, magic-find routing are the game
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.