When comparing Torque 2D MIT vs Phaser.io, the Slant community recommends Torque 2D MIT for most people. In the question“What are the best 2D game engines?” Torque 2D MIT is ranked 4th while Phaser.io is ranked 8th. The most important reason people chose Torque 2D MIT is:
Torque 2D gives developers complete access to the source code. This removes all barriers one may hit when trying to extend and/or customize the engine they are working with.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Extremely extendable and customizable
Torque 2D gives developers complete access to the source code. This removes all barriers one may hit when trying to extend and/or customize the engine they are working with.
Pro Cross platform
Torque 2D runs on Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, Linux, and Web.
Pro The scripting language is quite powerful
Torquescript is a fast and easy to use C++ like scripting language that ties all of the various elements of a project together. It supports a large complement of functions including math, physics, object manipulation, fileIO, and more. Torquescript features:
- Object-oriented programming
- Transparent interconnection with internal C++ objects
- Built-in fast 2D math (vectors, matrices, and quaternions with all corresponding functions)
- Well-documented standard library (hundreds of functions out-of-the box)
- Component system (aka Behaviors)
- Dynamic asset and module loading
Pro Highly performant
The engine utilizes a combination of batched rendering, asset management, and a module system that allows for high frame rates on all platforms.
Pro Box2D physics
Torque 2D MIT's utilizes Box2D for all physics calculations. Anyone with prior knowledge with Box2D by itself or through other engines can easily transfer their knowledge. Nearly all of the Box2D API is exposed to the scripting language, making it a quick process to port games to the engine without having to learn an entirely new system.
Pro Built-in Arcade Particle system
Pro Great community resources
Pro WebGL and Canvas rendering modes
You can choose WebGL or classic HTML canvas element for game rendering.
Pro Very active development
This is one of the most developed frameworks right now.

Pro Good tutorials, courses and books
There are plenty of great learning resources available for Phaser.io.
Pro Super-simple loading of assets
Pro Excellent tools for sprites
Pro Support for Arcade Physics, Ninja Physics and p2.js
Pro Easy to learn
Most tasks are done just using 2 or 3 lines of code.


Pro Very fast to develop with
If you're browsing Slant, you probably already have a JavaScript enabled browser, which is most of what you need to get started learning JavaScript. The requirement to run a server locally on your computer while developing might make things a little more difficult
Pro No install required
All you need to do is attach Phaser script to a HTML page even without installing any extensions.
Pro Easy to understand if you have used flash
Phaser provides a similar approach as to that of Flash games, where you can load assets and place them on a stage, and even improves upon the shortcomings of actionscript. It is very easy to shift from flash to HTML5 development because of this approach.
Pro You can run it in the cloud
You can use it in popular online editors like replit, codandbox, etc.
Pro Animating is easy
Pro Has separate versions maintained by developer and the community
The creator of phaser(photonstorm) has given the older(Phaser 2.0) source code to the community for their own maintenance, and has made Phaser 3.0 with a different style and approach, trying to make it easier for beginners to learn.
Cons
Con Project seems to be abandoned
Seems to not be developed/supported anymore.
Con Lacking documentation
The engine documentation is incomplete. Not all of the engine API is fleshed out and the number of tutorials is pretty small. All current and future documentation effort is up to the community, via the Torque 2D MIT GitHub wiki.
Con Rentware
Con Using Cordova to Export for Mobile
To export to mobile games you need to use cordova.
Con Official documentation is not so good

Con Poor performance
As long as your map is not larger than 600*400px, everything is fine.
Con Extremely many bugs
Con Developer ignores community needs
