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 · Practiced Mastery
Planning squad approaches to scripted missions where one mistake kills.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Learning fixed boss patterns and managing survival systems through a linear jungle infiltration.
Hidden & Dangerous 2 leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 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.
Hidden & Dangerous 2
Deliberate aim and stealth movement punish sloppy hands
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
CQC execution, camouflage switching speed, and boss timing are demanding
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Hidden & Dangerous 2
German AI follows patrol scripts, not adapting to you
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
The Cobra unit fights with scripted abilities; no real-time player profiling
Hidden & Dangerous 2 leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Hidden & Dangerous 2
Patrol routes and enemy positions are unknown first attempt
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Camouflage index and food supply introduce hidden-state management
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Hidden & Dangerous 2
Squad planning, loadouts and approach routing decide missions
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Camo pattern matching and boss moveset mastery are fully learnable
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.