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

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
A squad-tactics WWII shooter built on authentic fire-and-flank maneuvers in Normandy.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Stealth systems mastery against scripted guards with moderate execution needs.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30
Aiming matters but suppression mechanics soften it
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
CQC, aiming and timed escapes demand real but moderate precision
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30
German AI holds scripted positions
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Guards and bosses run rich but ultimately scripted behaviours
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30
Some shot and AI noise
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Patrols and boss quirks are unknown only until studied
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30
Fix-and-flank squad tactics are the core puzzle
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Camo, food and route systems reward deep mastery
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.