Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Torque 2D MIT vs GameMaker Studio 2, 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 GameMaker Studio 2 is ranked 67th. 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
Question 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 Quick prototyping
Pro Good user interface
Pro Well-optimized engine
Pro Has a trial version (but limited functions, can't export)
Pro Many unofficial tutorials
Most GMS1 tutorials are fine for GMS2
Pro Highly customizable IDE
Although users must work within the IDE and editor, GMS2 has many options to customize the look and feel
Pro Good documentation
Pro Huge, generous community
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 Not the best scripting language out there
GML is just weird; if you want to learn programming, it is not the best because it teaches bad habits and has many odd shortcuts and shortcomings that won't transfer to a real language
Con HTML5 export is buggy, doesn't "just work"
Con Quite expensive
Windows ($100) + HTML5 ($140) + Mobile ($400) + UWP ($400) is $1,050, plus $800 anually for each console export separately. But doesn't do anything any of the free engines can't do, and the stability and tech support aren't great.
Con Unstable
Users frequently report crashes and hangs, particularly when working with assets, and the software uses a complicated underlying meta-file structure that may become corrupted and cannot be rebuilt
Con Limited support for OOP
Con Small development team
The core programming team is only 5-10 people, with about 30 employees total, so bug fixes can take a long time to be addressed, and there aren't many official tutorials
