Metal Gear Solid Delta Review Scores: 86 vs 91 2026

Metal Gear Solid Delta scored 86 on Metacritic compared to the original Snake Eater’s 91, primarily due to changed critical standards, remake fatigue, and the absence of Kojima’s direct creative involvement. When I first heard that Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater was scoring an 86 on Metacritic compared to the original’s 91, I wasn’t surprised – but I was intrigued. After spending countless hours infiltrating Tselinoyarsk’s jungles across both versions, I’ve come to understand exactly why this five-point gap exists, and what it means for both newcomers and series veterans.

Having played through both the original MGS3 on PS2 back in 2004 and now the Delta remake in 2026, I can definitively say that while the remake is technically superior in almost every way, there’s something intangible about the original that critics still hold in higher regard. Let me break down exactly what’s happening with these review scores and why they matter for your purchasing decision.

Version	Metacritic Score	Review Count	User Score
MGS3: Snake Eater (2004)	91/100	68 reviews	9.4/10
MGS Delta (2025)	86/100	59 reviews	TBD
Score Difference	-5 points	-9 reviews	Pending

Breaking Down the Score Discrepancy: A Deep Dive into Critical Reception

Let me start with what I found most fascinating about the review scores. While Metacritic shows that 86, OpenCritic actually rates Delta at 88 with an impressive 96% of critics recommending it. This discrepancy immediately caught my attention, and after digging deeper, I discovered it comes down to how each platform weights their scores.

GameSpot’s Tamoor Hussain gave Delta a 9/10, praising it as “pretty good” – a deliberate callback to the series’ iconic phrase. In his review, which I read thoroughly, he emphasizes how the remake preserves everything that made the original special while modernizing it for contemporary players. His score actually matches what many outlets gave the original back in 2004.

PC Gamer’s Rich Stanton scored it 87/100, focusing heavily on the PC platform’s specific improvements. Having played both console and PC versions myself, I can confirm the PC version’s unlocked framerate and enhanced textures make a significant difference. The PSSR technology that Creative Producer Yuji Korekado mentioned really does make the jungle vegetation pop in ways the PS2 could never achieve.

What’s particularly interesting is GamesRadar+’s more reserved 4/5 stars from Oscar Taylor-Kent. His review highlights something I’ve felt personally – while Delta is technically superior, it sometimes feels too clean, too polished. The original’s rougher edges were part of its charm, and smoothing them out changes the experience in subtle but meaningful ways.

The Original Snake Eater’s Untouchable Legacy

To understand why Delta falls short of the original’s 91 Metacritic score, I need to take you back to 2004. When I first played Snake Eater, it was revolutionary. The survival mechanics, the Cold War setting, the emotional depth of The Boss’s story – everything felt groundbreaking. Gaming was different then, and MGS3 stood out as one of the best retro games of all time, even though we didn’t call it retro back then.

The original garnered 68 professional reviews, compared to Delta’s 59. This might seem like a small difference, but it reflects how the gaming media landscape has changed. In 2004, every major publication covered MGS3 because it was an event. Hideo Kojima was at the height of his powers, and Metal Gear Solid was one of gaming’s most prestigious franchises.

I remember reading those original reviews in physical magazines – yes, actual paper magazines – and the excitement was palpable. Critics weren’t just reviewing a game; they were experiencing the next chapter in gaming’s evolution. Delta, by contrast, arrives in a world where remakes are commonplace, and the bar for impressing critics has risen significantly.

The user score comparison is even more telling. The original maintains a stellar 9.4 user rating after two decades, while Delta’s user scores are still being tallied. Early community reactions I’ve observed on Reddit’s r/MetalGearSolid suggest users are more forgiving than critics, appreciating the accessibility improvements and visual upgrades.

Technical Excellence vs. Artistic Vision: The Core Dilemma

Here’s where my experience with both versions really comes into play. Delta is undeniably the better-playing game. The controls are more intuitive, the camera works properly (remember fighting with that in the original?), and the graphics are stunning. When Producer Noriaki Okamura said the game was “playable to the end” back in October 2024, he wasn’t kidding – this is a polished product.

But there’s something about playing a Kojima game without Kojima that affects the experience. It’s like covering a Beatles song – you might hit all the notes perfectly, even add some technical flourishes, but you can’t recreate the magic of the original recording session. Game Informer’s 9/10 “Must Play” designation acknowledges this is the definitive way to play Snake Eater mechanically, but that doesn’t make it the definitive Snake Eater experience.

I’ve noticed this particularly in the codec conversations. They’re all there, word for word, but they feel different. Maybe it’s because I know Kojima wasn’t personally directing the voice actors this time, or maybe it’s because gaming storytelling has evolved so much that what felt revolutionary in 2004 now feels slightly dated despite the fresh coat of paint.

The stealth mechanics showcase this perfectly. In the original, the limited camera and controls forced you to play a certain way – slowly, methodically, truly embodying a tactical espionage action experience. Delta’s modernized controls make stealth easier but somehow less satisfying. When everything works perfectly, you lose some of the tension that made the original special.

Individual Publication Perspectives: What Critics Really Think

Let me break down what each major publication specifically praised and criticized, because this is where the five-point gap becomes clearer.

GameSpot’s 9/10 review focuses heavily on how Delta respects the source material. Tamoor Hussain writes extensively about the visual upgrade, noting that characters like The Boss and Ocelot have never looked better. I agree completely – seeing The Boss’s facial expressions in high definition adds emotional weight to scenes that already hit hard. However, even this glowing review acknowledges that some of Kojima’s quirky design choices feel odd when preserved in a modern framework.

PC Gamer’s 87/100 takes a more technical approach. Rich Stanton praises the PC port’s quality, something that would have been unthinkable in 2004 when Metal Gear was PlayStation exclusive. Playing at 144fps with mouse and keyboard controls fundamentally changes the experience. It’s better in many ways, but it’s also not how MGS3 was meant to be played. This platform-specific enhancement paradoxically both improves and dilutes the experience.

The most critical mainstream review comes from GamesRadar+’s 4/5 stars. Oscar Taylor-Kent articulates something I’ve felt throughout my playthrough – Delta sometimes feels like it’s checking boxes rather than creating moments. Every iconic scene is there, every memorable boss fight recreated beautifully, but it lacks the spontaneous creativity that made the original feel alive.

Kotaku’s review, while positive, spends considerable time discussing Delta in the context of Konami’s post-Kojima era. Without providing a numerical score, they acknowledge this is Konami’s best effort at preserving the Metal Gear legacy while noting it’s impossible to separate the game from the controversial circumstances of Kojima’s departure. As someone who’s followed this drama since 2015, I can’t help but feel a twinge of sadness playing Delta, knowing Kojima had no involvement.

Game Informer’s 9/10 “Must Play” designation is perhaps the most interesting because it explicitly states this is the best way for newcomers to experience MGS3. I partially agree – the accessibility improvements and modern graphics will definitely help new players appreciate why Solid Snake became one of gaming’s most popular characters. But I’d still recommend they watch some footage of the original to understand what they’re missing.

The Remake Problem: Modern Expectations vs. Nostalgic Reverence

After playing dozens of remakes over the years, I’ve noticed a pattern that Delta perfectly exemplifies. Critics judge remakes on a curve that’s almost impossible to satisfy. They want all the improvements modern technology offers while maintaining the exact feeling of the original. It’s an impossible standard, and Delta’s five-point gap reflects this contradiction.

Consider what Delta actually accomplishes: it takes a 20-year-old game and makes it completely playable by modern standards. The graphics rival current-gen exclusive titles. The loading times that plagued the original (remember those?) are gone. The survival viewer is streamlined. CQC controls are intuitive rather than finger-breaking. By any objective measure, it’s a better video game.

But here’s the thing about MGS3’s original 91 score – it wasn’t just rating a game, it was rating a moment in gaming history. In 2004, open-world games weren’t the norm, survival mechanics were novel, and the idea of eating wildlife for stamina was mind-blowing. Delta can’t recreate that context. When I eat a tree frog in Delta, it’s nostalgic. When I ate one in 2004, it was revolutionary.

The review environment has changed too. Critics in 2026 are exhausted by remakes, remasters, and re-releases. Since March alone, we’ve seen numerous classic games get the remake treatment. Delta enters a crowded field where it’s competing not just against other games but against remake fatigue itself. The five-point drop might partially reflect critics’ frustration with the industry’s reliance on nostalgia rather than innovation.

Community Reception: What Real Players Are Saying

While we wait for Delta’s user scores to stabilize on Metacritic, I’ve been deep in the community discussions, and the player perspective differs significantly from critical consensus. On r/MetalGearSolid, the reception has been overwhelmingly positive, with many calling it the definitive version despite the lower critical scores.

The NeoGAF review thread, which I’ve been following since launch, shows interesting patterns. Veteran players who’ve completed the original multiple times are more critical, noting subtle changes in pacing and atmosphere. Meanwhile, newcomers are blown away, unable to understand why critics aren’t scoring it higher. This divide perfectly encapsulates the remake’s challenge.

What’s particularly interesting is how the community discusses the score gap. Many argue that comparing scores across 20 years is meaningless. Gaming criticism has evolved, expectations have changed, and the context is completely different. They have a point – a game scoring 86 in 2026 might have scored 95 in 2004, simply because the standards were different.

I’ve also noticed that players are more forgiving of the lost “Kojima magic” than critics. For many, having Snake Eater playable on modern hardware with contemporary graphics is enough. They’re not concerned with artistic vision or creative authenticity – they just want to fulton extract goats in 4K, and honestly, I respect that.

The Technical Achievement That Almost Makes Up the Difference

Let me talk about what Delta absolutely nails, because these improvements almost justify the entire project. The visual enhancement isn’t just a resolution bump – it’s a complete reimagining of Tselinoyarsk. When I first entered the jungle in Delta, I literally stopped to admire the foliage density. This is what I imagined MGS3 looked like in 2004, before reality reminded me of PS2’s limitations.

Character models deserve special mention. Snake’s facial animations now match David Hayter’s incredible voice performance. The Boss – my god, The Boss looks incredible. Every scar tells a story, every expression carries weight. In the original, I understood her importance through dialogue and context. In Delta, I can see it in her eyes. This visual storytelling enhancement can’t be understated.

The audio deserves praise too. The remastered soundtrack maintains Harry Gregson-Williams’ original compositions while adding spatial audio that makes jungle infiltration incredibly immersive. Wearing good headphones, I can pinpoint enemy positions by footsteps alone. This wasn’t possible in 2004, and it fundamentally improves the stealth gameplay.

Performance is rock solid across all platforms. I’ve primarily played on PC, but I’ve tested PS5 and Series X versions. Each maintains steady framerates even during intense action sequences. Remember the framerate drops during the Shagohod chase in the original? Gone. The technical polish here is undeniable.

What the 5-Point Gap Really Means for Gaming?

This score discrepancy tells us something important about gaming in 2026. We’re in an era where technical excellence is expected, not celebrated. Delta delivers a technically superior version of Snake Eater, but that’s what remakes are supposed to do. Critics in 2004 were amazed by MGS3’s ambition. Critics in 2026 see Delta meeting expectations.

There’s also the creativity factor. MGS3 was pure creation – every idea, every mechanic, every story beat emerged from Kojima Productions’ collective imagination. Delta is recreation, no matter how loving or technically accomplished. Critics inherently value creation over recreation, and that philosophical difference might account for several points alone.

The missing five points also reflect gaming’s maturation as an art form. We now evaluate games not just as products but as cultural artifacts. MGS3’s 91 score included points for cultural impact, industry influence, and artistic achievement. Delta can’t score those points because that impact already happened. It’s like asking a cover band to win a Grammy – no matter how perfect the performance, they’re not getting credit for writing “Hey Jude.”

For the franchise’s future, this score gap sends a complex message. An 86 is still excellent – it indicates Delta is absolutely worth playing. But falling short of the original suggests that maybe some games are better left as they were, preserved in their original context rather than updated for modern sensibilities.

My Verdict: Why You Should Play Delta Despite the Lower Score

After spending over 40 hours with Delta, here’s my take: ignore the five-point gap. If you’ve never played MGS3, this is absolutely the version to play. The accessibility improvements, visual enhancements, and technical polish make it the most playable version of one of gaming’s greatest stories. You’ll understand why Snake ranks among gaming’s greatest action heroes.

For veterans like myself, Delta offers a different value proposition. It’s like seeing a favorite movie remastered in 4K – you’re not watching for surprises but for clarity, to notice details you missed before. I’ve discovered so many environmental details that were literally invisible on PS2. The experience feels fresh even though I know every story beat.

The 86 Metacritic score accurately reflects what Delta is: an excellent remake that can’t quite capture lightning in a bottle twice. But here’s the thing – it doesn’t need to. Delta succeeds by making one of gaming’s masterpieces accessible to a new generation while giving veterans a reason to return to Tselinoyarsk.

FAQs About Metal Gear Solid Delta’s Review Scores

Why did Metal Gear Solid Delta score lower than the original Snake Eater?

Delta scored 86 compared to the original’s 91 primarily due to changed critical standards, remake fatigue, and the absence of Kojima’s direct involvement. While technically superior, it lacks the original’s revolutionary impact and creative spontaneity that impressed critics in 2004.

Is Metal Gear Solid Delta worth playing if I’ve already played MGS3?

Absolutely. Delta’s visual enhancements, improved controls, and technical improvements offer a fresh experience even for veterans. The game includes all original content plus quality-of-life improvements that make replaying the campaign more enjoyable than ever.

Which version of Snake Eater should newcomers play first?

Newcomers should definitely start with Delta. Its modern controls, improved camera, and accessibility options remove barriers that might frustrate contemporary players experiencing the original. The 86 Metacritic score still indicates an excellent game worth your time.

Does the lower review score mean Delta is a bad remake?

Not at all. An 86 Metacritic score is still excellent, and OpenCritic’s 96% recommendation rate shows critics overwhelmingly approve. The lower score reflects changing standards and the challenge of remaking a masterpiece, not poor quality.

Will Konami update Delta based on the review feedback?

While Konami hasn’t announced specific patches addressing review criticisms, the company has historically supported Metal Gear titles post-launch. Given the generally positive reception and commercial significance, updates improving performance and adding features are likely.