Depends on when you date the fall of the Empire actually.
But you can bookend one's experiences as a resident of the city of Rome on the basis of whether they witnessed/survived one or both sacks of Rome in 410 and 455, and whether they had to live through the 20 year long Gothic War in 535-554 and the multiple sieges/sacks/famines/massacres of varying elements of the city's populace, both elite and commoner.
Because feasibly, you can construct an arguably non-destructive 70 year life for a Roman city dweller if they were born after 460 and died before 535.
Although with that said, 460-493 and 526-535 weren't exactly cakewalks either, as one would have persistent political instability. It's more that it hadn't devolved into outright total war rendering your likelihood of surviving unscathed close to nil.
I would equate living in those bookend years akin to living in Germany just before WW2. There was still a lot of violence and insecurity. It just wasn't the meat grinder of death that came afterward.
Hi there, there's always room for more here, but while you wait for an answer you might find a fair amount to interest you in the Rome section of our FAQ.
These might be of some use:
How did the decline and fall of Ancient Rome affect the average citizens of the Empire?
What happened to far flung Roman provinces when the city itself fell?
One thing that I would say (and then I will exit quickly stage left because this is not my area) is that it's important to understand that the "fall of Rome" was not a singular event; the sacking of the city of Rome is an event that happened multiple times, but Rome had not been the capital of the western Empire for several decades when it was sacked and "fell." A rather popular historiographical debate is whether and to what extent "Rome" actually fell, considering that the eastern (later called Byzantine) empire endured into the 1400s.