11 ms·
Ct-js and Pixi.js is great, but personally I always reach for Phaser (https://phaser.io/ https://phaser.io/) and the Phaser Editor 2d IDE (https://phasereditor2
by kanobo 6y ago
Ct-js and Pixi.js is great, but personally I always reach for Phaser (https://phaser.io/ https://phaser.io/) and the Phaser Editor 2d IDE (https://phasereditor2d.com/ https://phasereditor2d.com/) first for games. There's just more batteries included with a better ecosystem if you're making an interactive game. I would use Pixi.js if I didn't need any interaction or sounds or sprite sheets.
- Aperocky 6y agoSprite sheets work fine with pixi, at least in my very rudimentary project of around 20 different sprites, did you encounter any problem in that space?
- kanobo 6y agoI was mainly thinking how spritesheets tools are much more developed in PhaserEditor2d vs ctjs, but you're definitely right in that loading spritesheets works perfect in Pixi especially if you use a tool like TexturePacker.
- qudat 6y agoI switched from phaser to pixi because I wanted more control over what I was doing. Animated sprites in phaser -- at least from what I could figure out -- have to have the exact same dimensions. Some of the sprites I was using were not that clean. This is one example of what I didn't like phaser, but it was pervasive. If phaser fit your particular game assets and use-cases, then it saved a ton of time. If it didn't fit perfectly, then it was a time suck going through forum posts, documentation, blogs, etc. trying to figure out what to do. Pixi supplies the primitives and gets out of your way.
- kanobo 6y agoJust curious if you experienced those issues with Phaser before or after they replaced Pixi and what's your strategy for sound and controls?