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
Stealth systems mastery against scripted guards with moderate execution needs.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
An open-world co-op shooter about scouting cartel bases and picking the cleanest approach.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands 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.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
CQC, aiming and timed escapes demand real but moderate precision
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands
Headshots, drone marking, and sync shots reward steady aim
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Guards and bosses run rich but ultimately scripted behaviours
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands
Enemy AI is scripted patrol logic, not adaptive
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Patrols and boss quirks are unknown only until studied
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands
Patrol spawns and reinforcements add mild unpredictability
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
Camo, food and route systems reward deep mastery
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands
Outpost approach planning and skill unlocks carry progression
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.