Building comparison
head to head
Don't StarvevsXCOM: Enemy Unknown
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is execution, and it is a single point.
Don't Starve
Variance · Systems & Chaos
Surviving randomised wilderness seasons by reading the world's systems and planning resources ahead.
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Optimization · Systems & Chaos
Managing RNG-driven combat while solving the underlying base economy and research tree.
Don't Starve leans Variance (Systems & Chaos); XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans Optimization (Systems & Chaos).
Don't StarveXCOM: Enemy Unknown
Axis by axis
Execution2 vs 3
XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Don't Starve
Kiting combat is simple but timing matters marginally
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Turn-based; no twitch inputs; cover placement has mild precision
Reads0 vs 1
XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Don't Starve
Enemies follow fixed aggression rules, not player adaptation
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Aliens follow scripted AI, never model your specific habits
Variance7 vs 7
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Don't Starve
World generation, season timing, and loot rolls are highly random
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Hit chances, crit rolls, and mission spawns create constant RNG swings
Optimization7 vs 8
XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Don't Starve
Seasonal resource planning and character synergies are deeply solvable
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Squad composition, research order, and base economy are 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.