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 · Light / Casual
A point-and-click adventure where inventory puzzle logic is the whole challenge.

Optimization · Light / Casual
An interactive novel that tests narrative attention more than any game skill.
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror leans Optimization (Light / Casual); Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth leans Optimization (Light / Casual).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror
no physical skill, point-and-click
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth
Point-and-click input has no physical ceiling
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror
no opponents, puzzle-driven
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth
Branching story characters follow scripts, not minds
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror
no meaningful randomness
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth
Choice outcomes are unknown on a first playthrough
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror
item puzzle logic is solvable
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth
Puzzles are sparse and single-solution
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.
full breakdown
Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror →
full breakdown
Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth →