In cyberpunk you could survive with skill, effort and luck.
In RDR, you’re getting tuberculosis before HRZE was invented
Seffyr
Recently started playing RDR2 again. There’s so few people in that game, and about 1 in 10 is hostile.
RayCama
I think canonically the average lifespan has increased in the world of cyberpunk compared to the Wild West.
Both games have hostile gangs and corrupt leadership, but only one of them have health plans and post-modern medicine.
If you keep your head down, you’re very likely to live a reasonably long life compared to modern standards.
The world of RDR is very much a time where a bad case of food poisoning had a legit chance of killing you, you catch nearly any illness and you’re very likely a deadman walking.
Anakhannawa
Well, sure a Netrunner can look at you and send you to Cyber hell. But you have ICE and other means to counteract this.
One loose cough from someone from the 1800s and you’re fucked with TB. And You can’t even do anything about it, you’re just fucked.
Viper_Visionary
Which is more dangerous? A world with cowboys and bandits that are ultimately just regular people, or a world with cybernetic-enhanced mercenaries and gangsters that can hack your brain?
Potential_Let_6901
Channel bias?
DandySlayer13
Gears of War. Fuck that planet seriously.
Lucia_the_doll
I mean in cyberpunk you won’t probably won’t die of TB/measles/the flu/infected cut before you reach age 10 which was a real concern in the old west
tdgrim89
Can you catch tuberculosis in Night City!? Didn’t think so!
Lean_For_Meme
The average life expectancy in 1899 was 45-49 for men and 51-55 for women. And that’s if and only if you don’t get shot by an outlaw, mauled by a random animal or contract an illness that is untreatable at the time. In cyberpunk if you don’t live in night city, you’ll most likely survive.
KiwiDanelaw
I mean you could die of some random disease in Western times, a simple cut on your finger could kill you. I’d probably take my chances in Cyberpunk tbh.
DrMole
Pretty sure I haven’t heard of anyone complaining of lumbago in cyberpunk.
BluuWolf34
While I agree that a lot of people do for sure die young in Night City I think the people that live to a crazy old age kind of skew the average. You have people like the Arasakas. Saburo lived until over 150 and both of his children are in their 70s but look to be middle aged. Sure if you’re poor you’ll die but if you’re rich the technology could let you live for a very long time. Sure not a lot of people get that privilege, but more than did in the Wild West lol.
ItsPinhead
Surviving Scavs might be more feasible than surviving cholera without modern medicine
OutspokenSeeker26
RDR2 is more naturally dangerous because of worse medicine, high infant and childbirth mortality and a smaller population were basic education and no ease of transport meant that deaths in the wild were more common.
However, Cyberpunk is set in a world with massively dense population centred where crime and murder isn’t just commonplace, it’s so commonplace that places like Night City have regular lotteries to guess how many people die that week. And those numbers can get pretty high very easily. And whilst healthcare is better, it’s also very expensive, quality care comes at a literal premium cost and there are far more ways to die or be killed quickly or instantly in Cyberpunk. And again, population density matters. V alone probably takes down enough gangers and corporate soldiers to account for the entire NPC count of RDR2, and that’s simply because there’s magnitudes more people who actively want to fight.
Jjzeng
In all fairness one of these three has untreated cholera and STDs
SMT_Fan666
No. there not entirely wrong.
In CBP2077 you can get a mind virus and simply see your ripper doc. in RDR you can’t get a stomach virus without dying.
At least in cyberpunk I can carry around in my pocket an injector that seemingly heals all injuries meanwhile in Red Dead Redemption any wound can be near fatal.
cyberspaceman777
OK here.
Penicillin.
Rdr2 wins
hunterkiller4570
Considering this was long before penicillin was invented, I don’t exactly blame them for choosing this. Back in those days disease was the biggest killer back then
freakingthesius007
Yeah put RDR2 on a list, it’ll win every one of them, except you know the worst game ones
Halollet
That’s pretty accurate. I mean, half of people died by the time they were 30 back then due to health concerns among other things.
Getting shot is one thing, but shitting your guts out is another, that’s all I’m sayin’.
UnggoyMemes
To be a lil fair
Life in the 1800s was pretty ass
Assassin-49
I’m sorry what ? Gta is more dangerous than rd2 . Have you seen the stuff going on there ? You have tanks driving in streets , gang wars on the daily , corrupt cops that will kill you for some spare change and then people driving around like there in a warzone because they are in a warzone . The most deadly rd2 gets is the mountains and that’s because off the bears , gangs hiding there and the climate . Cyberpunk is almost as bad as a hive city . You have gang wars that make gta looks small . Corporations thar commit war crimes on a daily and the daily trip to work has a 60% chance of death . Rd2 is not even close . I love all 3 games but as a guy who has hundreds of hours in each of them it’s sadly not even close . Edit : I’ve just rethinking after like 2 minutes . Rd2 has worser meds and stuff like tb which can’t be cured . So rd2 does win in some aspects . There are certain infections that can’t be cured because rd2 is before the 1900s so certain surgery’s and medical stuff isn’t made yet . But I will still say night city is worser mainly because of the state of the city . Your not V in that scenario . In rd2 if you get into a fight you could win because there still humans . Your not arthur so your not the best gunslinger but you could still kill someone with a few bullets . The other has people running around that can tank whole magazines . I don’t even think pre tb arthur would survive in night city . His attitude ( depending on high or low honour ) could get him into fights which could get him killed quickly . And unless arthur gets some implants he would die . So even some of the more dangerous folk in rd2 might not last long . But I will note again that rd2 wins some aspects
EyeSpyBrownEyez
Night City is definitely the deadliest environment out of these
niv13
Hahaha, when both sub actually agree on the same thing.
Even in the rdr sub they were saying Cyberpunk was more dangerous to live as a normal guy
BornWater2862
They’re summoning cyber demons in Cyberpunk and that’s just the least of the city’s problems.
littlebubulle
Cyberpunk universe in 2077 in general might be less dangerous. Night City is definitely more dangerous.
PancakeParty98
You’re forgetting that they don’t have antibiotics in RDR2, or hardly any effective medicine.
Xxatanaz
Idk dawg dying of tuberculosis would be kinda wack in the big 2077
Natural-Parfait2805
there is an argument between GTA and cyberpunk I will admit, especially if GTA online is considered
but red dead? what? 99% of the people in red dead never experience the chaos Arthur does, most live normal peaceful lives
31 Comments
In cyberpunk you could survive with skill, effort and luck.
In RDR, you’re getting tuberculosis before HRZE was invented
Recently started playing RDR2 again. There’s so few people in that game, and about 1 in 10 is hostile.
I think canonically the average lifespan has increased in the world of cyberpunk compared to the Wild West.
Both games have hostile gangs and corrupt leadership, but only one of them have health plans and post-modern medicine.
If you keep your head down, you’re very likely to live a reasonably long life compared to modern standards.
The world of RDR is very much a time where a bad case of food poisoning had a legit chance of killing you, you catch nearly any illness and you’re very likely a deadman walking.
Well, sure a Netrunner can look at you and send you to Cyber hell. But you have ICE and other means to counteract this.
One loose cough from someone from the 1800s and you’re fucked with TB. And You can’t even do anything about it, you’re just fucked.
Which is more dangerous? A world with cowboys and bandits that are ultimately just regular people, or a world with cybernetic-enhanced mercenaries and gangsters that can hack your brain?
Channel bias?
Gears of War. Fuck that planet seriously.
I mean in cyberpunk you won’t probably won’t die of TB/measles/the flu/infected cut before you reach age 10 which was a real concern in the old west
Can you catch tuberculosis in Night City!? Didn’t think so!
The average life expectancy in 1899 was 45-49 for men and 51-55 for women. And that’s if and only if you don’t get shot by an outlaw, mauled by a random animal or contract an illness that is untreatable at the time. In cyberpunk if you don’t live in night city, you’ll most likely survive.
I mean you could die of some random disease in Western times, a simple cut on your finger could kill you. I’d probably take my chances in Cyberpunk tbh.
Pretty sure I haven’t heard of anyone complaining of lumbago in cyberpunk.
While I agree that a lot of people do for sure die young in Night City I think the people that live to a crazy old age kind of skew the average. You have people like the Arasakas. Saburo lived until over 150 and both of his children are in their 70s but look to be middle aged. Sure if you’re poor you’ll die but if you’re rich the technology could let you live for a very long time. Sure not a lot of people get that privilege, but more than did in the Wild West lol.
Surviving Scavs might be more feasible than surviving cholera without modern medicine
RDR2 is more naturally dangerous because of worse medicine, high infant and childbirth mortality and a smaller population were basic education and no ease of transport meant that deaths in the wild were more common.
However, Cyberpunk is set in a world with massively dense population centred where crime and murder isn’t just commonplace, it’s so commonplace that places like Night City have regular lotteries to guess how many people die that week. And those numbers can get pretty high very easily. And whilst healthcare is better, it’s also very expensive, quality care comes at a literal premium cost and there are far more ways to die or be killed quickly or instantly in Cyberpunk. And again, population density matters. V alone probably takes down enough gangers and corporate soldiers to account for the entire NPC count of RDR2, and that’s simply because there’s magnitudes more people who actively want to fight.
In all fairness one of these three has untreated cholera and STDs
No. there not entirely wrong.
In CBP2077 you can get a mind virus and simply see your ripper doc. in RDR you can’t get a stomach virus without dying.
At least in cyberpunk I can carry around in my pocket an injector that seemingly heals all injuries meanwhile in Red Dead Redemption any wound can be near fatal.
OK here.
Penicillin.
Rdr2 wins
Considering this was long before penicillin was invented, I don’t exactly blame them for choosing this. Back in those days disease was the biggest killer back then
Yeah put RDR2 on a list, it’ll win every one of them, except you know the worst game ones
That’s pretty accurate. I mean, half of people died by the time they were 30 back then due to health concerns among other things.
Getting shot is one thing, but shitting your guts out is another, that’s all I’m sayin’.
To be a lil fair
Life in the 1800s was pretty ass
I’m sorry what ? Gta is more dangerous than rd2 . Have you seen the stuff going on there ? You have tanks driving in streets , gang wars on the daily , corrupt cops that will kill you for some spare change and then people driving around like there in a warzone because they are in a warzone . The most deadly rd2 gets is the mountains and that’s because off the bears , gangs hiding there and the climate . Cyberpunk is almost as bad as a hive city . You have gang wars that make gta looks small . Corporations thar commit war crimes on a daily and the daily trip to work has a 60% chance of death . Rd2 is not even close . I love all 3 games but as a guy who has hundreds of hours in each of them it’s sadly not even close . Edit : I’ve just rethinking after like 2 minutes . Rd2 has worser meds and stuff like tb which can’t be cured . So rd2 does win in some aspects . There are certain infections that can’t be cured because rd2 is before the 1900s so certain surgery’s and medical stuff isn’t made yet . But I will still say night city is worser mainly because of the state of the city . Your not V in that scenario . In rd2 if you get into a fight you could win because there still humans . Your not arthur so your not the best gunslinger but you could still kill someone with a few bullets . The other has people running around that can tank whole magazines . I don’t even think pre tb arthur would survive in night city . His attitude ( depending on high or low honour ) could get him into fights which could get him killed quickly . And unless arthur gets some implants he would die . So even some of the more dangerous folk in rd2 might not last long . But I will note again that rd2 wins some aspects
Night City is definitely the deadliest environment out of these
Hahaha, when both sub actually agree on the same thing.
Even in the rdr sub they were saying Cyberpunk was more dangerous to live as a normal guy
They’re summoning cyber demons in Cyberpunk and that’s just the least of the city’s problems.
Cyberpunk universe in 2077 in general might be less dangerous. Night City is definitely more dangerous.
You’re forgetting that they don’t have antibiotics in RDR2, or hardly any effective medicine.
Idk dawg dying of tuberculosis would be kinda wack in the big 2077
there is an argument between GTA and cyberpunk I will admit, especially if GTA online is considered
but red dead? what? 99% of the people in red dead never experience the chaos Arthur does, most live normal peaceful lives
