head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is variance, 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
A deep optimization puzzle solved through job combinations and CT-manipulation on fixed maps.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Final Fantasy Tactics 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
Final Fantasy Tactics
No twitch; CT-tick positioning demands spatial planning only
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
All NPCs and factions follow scripted dialogue and combat routines
Final Fantasy Tactics
CPU job/action selection is fixed and fully predictable
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura 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
Final Fantasy Tactics
Random drops and some proc rates exist but rarely swing outcomes
Final Fantasy Tactics leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Magic versus technology stat split and schematic discovery are deeply optimizable
Final Fantasy Tactics
Job mastery, ability stacking, and CT manipulation are near-perfectly solvable
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.