Board Thread:Warrior's Pub/@comment-11361577-20160801143105/@comment-422690-20160801222050

Cfp3157 wrote: Actually, the events of Red Dead Redemption take place in 1911 (historical inaccuracies aside), and the time gap is, while still larger than the mentioned battle, only a one-hundred year difference. My argument here is that placing it off time gap alone would not be enough for reason to declare unfairness, further explained below.

And the guns in the match are from the 1800s.

Cfp3157 wrote: And while it's true the starting gun is a single action revolver, he does "upgrade" per day to more evenly match able weapons such as Mauser pistols, Browning Auto shotguns, and even anti-tank rifles (once again, historical accuracy aside).

The weapon selection in the match linked is entirely single-action revolvers and lever-action rifles. Again, I'm going entirely off of the linked match; I'm not familiar with the game.

Cfp3157 wrote: As for apples to oranges comparisons, that may be required here

This makes it clear that you have no idea what the phrase means. An "Apples to oranges" comparison is one that is so wildly different from the other that they can't be compared in any objective sense. The logic for one does not apply to the logic for another.

A final counterpoint, people kept harping on Marston's skill. Well, here's a comparison which is actually more valid: Cavalry in WWI was skilled. They still got ripped to pieces by automatic weapons. And that's the issue here; Marston and his crew have lever-action, single-action, etc. weapons. Every single member of Niko's crew has automatic weapons. They can put much more lead in the air much faster than Marston and his crew can; automatic weaponry is designed to lower the skill level needed to do high damage.