Poll: Damage vs attack speed

[ace_of_something]

In Video games? Fast attacks are almost always better because they also tend to hit more often. In say a pen and paper RPG. Slow. All the way. One big hit is infinitly better than several small ones that are just as likely to hit but waste more time.

 

[jklinders]

With where gaming has gone in recent years all but killing the party based RPG, fast but weak is funner. But in times past when there were true party based RPGs you needed both. You needed DPSers to fend off the weak mobs and you needed bruisers to crack the tough defense of enemies with high damage reduction. I sometimes lament that party balance has all but died in gaming. But in the current climate a good DPSer is a lot more fun than a bruiser.

 

[DrDuckman]

Slow and Powerful any time. Cause in real life, if two opponents are both good, the bigger one almost always wins.

Also in gaming, being able to oneshot opponents with a slow swing is always more efficient than having to hit them multiple times, even if you could kill them equally fast(usually because the bigger weapon has longer reach, and you can time the attack to hit just as you move in range). In addition, in most systems a strong attack is much more likely to stagger an opponent that you cant instakill. The flipside ofcourse is that a slow and heavy style requires a more patient, methodical approach, as if you are impatient and miss, you die. But that's part of the fun.

I would argue that generally the slow and powerful approach requires far more precision and skill in most games. Skyrim, FPS, Daemon/Dark Souls etc.

 

[lord.jeff]

Unless the game offers a knockback or stun advantage for the power hitter fast wins.

 

[Faladorian]

Fast attacks. Every time, every game. No matter what.

Spoiler: Oh, did you say I have to choose between insane speed OR obscene damage? Don't be silly, both!