Building comparison
head to head
Call of Duty 3vsThe Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, and it is a single point.
Call of Duty 3
Execution · Pure Mechanics
WWII gunfight execution with light multiplayer prediction.
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Execution · Competitive PvP
A casual team shootout where aim and basic opponent awareness decide rounds.
Call of Duty 3 leans Execution (Pure Mechanics); The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare leans Execution (Competitive PvP).
Call of Duty 3The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Axis by axis
Execution6 vs 6
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Call of Duty 3
Aimbot trivialises both campaign and multiplayer gunfights
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Aimbot would dominate these third-person toy-soldier shootouts
Reads3 vs 4
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Call of Duty 3
Multiplayer adds modest human positional prediction
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Human opponents in objective modes reward positional prediction
Variance2 vs 2
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Call of Duty 3
Scripted setpieces and spawn flow add minor unknowns
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Random spawns and chaotic lobbies add mild noise
Optimization3 vs 2
Call of Duty 3 leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Call of Duty 3
Map knowledge and weapon choice reward light study
The Mean Greens: Plastic Warfare
Objective routes are simple; little system depth to solve
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.