3 ms·

Has anyone compared phaser with impact? They both seem great.

by seivan 11y ago

clessg 11y ago
I've used both extensively. Here's my take: * Impact is a lot more low-level. If your game is complicated, you will have to get into the weeds of the canvas API. * Phaser supports canvas and WebGL. Impact supports canvas exclusively. * Impact costs $99. Phaser is open source. * Impact rarely ever receives updates. Apparently the creator is working on 2.0, but nobody knows if or when that will be released. Phaser is updated very frequently. * Phaser has the edge in terms of popularity. You will find a lot more articles and books for it. * Phaser has batteries included. Impact is more bare-bones. * It can be a pain to keep your local changes synced with upstream changes in Impact unless you go through a bit of hassle. (You will -probably- need to modify Impact's core if your game is complicated.) * Impact has a level builder and some other tools out of the box. I personally don't use it. Tiled is better, and Phaser has good support for Tiled. Actually, I've had better luck using Tiled in Impact, but it required writing a lot of custom code. Most people will probably have more luck using Tiled with Phaser. * Impact is a lot faster in my experience, even with WebGL enabled in Phaser. YMMV. * Impact has far superior support for high DPI screens last time I checked. (Disclaimer: was a year ago.) Getting stuff to look good on retina screens in Phaser was hellish and things would randomly break. * The learning curve of Impact is extremely low. However, you will feel constrained for bigger projects, which may require lots of custom visual and audio handling. * Impact uses its own module system. Using browserify or webpack with it isn't really feasible.
- seivan 11y ago
  Thank you for the list, I appreciate it! Regarding Impact (canvas) being faster than WebGL in Phaser. It's not the first time I hear canvas being faster. two.js had the same problem, and from what I gathered it had to do with not caching something. Maybe you know more about it than I do. Again, thank you!

Has anyone compared phaser with impact? They both seem great.

by seivan 11y ago

Has anyone compared phaser with impact? They both seem great.

I've used both extensively. Here's my take: * Impact is a lot more low-level. If your game is complicated, you will have to get into the weeds of the canvas API. * Phaser supports canvas and WebGL. Impact supports canvas exclusively. * Impact costs $99. Phaser is open source. * Impact rarely ever receives updates. Apparently the creator is working on 2.0, but nobody knows if or when that will be released. Phaser is updated very frequently. * Phaser has the edge in terms of popularity. You will find a lot more articles and books for it. * Phaser has batteries included. Impact is more bare-bones. * It can be a pain to keep your local changes synced with upstream changes in Impact unless you go through a bit of hassle. (You will -probably- need to modify Impact's core if your game is complicated.) * Impact has a level builder and some other tools out of the box. I personally don't use it. Tiled is better, and Phaser has good support for Tiled. Actually, I've had better luck using Tiled in Impact, but it required writing a lot of custom code. Most people will probably have more luck using Tiled with Phaser. * Impact is a lot faster in my experience, even with WebGL enabled in Phaser. YMMV. * Impact has far superior support for high DPI screens last time I checked. (Disclaimer: was a year ago.) Getting stuff to look good on retina screens in Phaser was hellish and things would randomly break. * The learning curve of Impact is extremely low. However, you will feel constrained for bigger projects, which may require lots of custom visual and audio handling. * Impact uses its own module system. Using browserify or webpack with it isn't really feasible.

seivan 11y ago
Thank you for the list, I appreciate it! Regarding Impact (canvas) being faster than WebGL in Phaser. It's not the first time I hear canvas being faster. two.js had the same problem, and from what I gathered it had to do with not caching something. Maybe you know more about it than I do. Again, thank you!