When comparing Phaser.io vs Starling, the Slant community recommends Phaser.io for most people. In the question“What are the best 2D game engines?” Phaser.io is ranked 10th while Starling is ranked 66th. The most important reason people chose Phaser.io is:
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Very fast to develop with
Pro Good tutorials, courses and books
There are plenty of great learning resources available for Phaser.io.
Pro Super-simple loading of assets
Pro Great community resources
Pro Animating is easy
Pro Excellent tools for sprites
Pro Built-in Arcade Particle system
Pro Easy to learn
Pro Support for Arcade Physics, Ninja Physics and p2.js
Pro No install required
All you need to do is attach Phaser script to a HTML page even without installing any extensions.
Pro Very active development
This is one of the most developed frameworks right now.
Pro WebGL and Canvas rendering modes
You can choose WebGL or classic HTML canvas element for game rendering.
Pro Easy to learn
Most task are done just using 2 or 3 lines of codes...
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.
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.
Starling is just 12k lines of code and doesn't try to do everything — but what it does, as efficient as possible.
Pro Feathers User Interface Components
With Feathers, you can easily add great user interfaces to your games — or even create business apps with Starling.
Pro Free and open source
Starling is available for free with code available on GitHub.
Pro Strong community support
Forum is always active with knowledgeable developers and with lot of inside info, and post mortems.
Pro Works with Flash
With UI, you can design it in Flash Professional (powerful 2D editor), export to swf file, use GAF convert swf file to gaf file, finnally, load gaf file to Starling. GAF can convert a lot of file swf to one atlas. Alway use same resource in design files (fla) to optimize atlas size, avoid duplicate asset in atlas.
You can use flash to create animation for starling.
Pro Hardware accelerated rendering
Let the GPU do the rendering, the CPU has more important tasks to do.
Pro Cross Platform
It can be exported to web flash player, iOS, Android, Windows, and OS X
Pro Works with AIR's native extensions
Using AIR's native extensions any native code that can be written can be run and used by the game engine.
Pro Constantly updated
New features are added regularly.
Pro Better performance than most alternatives
Starling can run more animated display objects than Unity2D and many others frameworks at 60 fps.
Con Poor performance
As long as your map is not larger than 600*400px, everything is fine.
Con Official documentation is not so good
Con Developer ignores community needs
Con Extremely many bugs
Con Poor text/font support
It supports only 4 features for text rendering:
- bitmap font with batching.
1.1. basic distance fields with support for outline and filters via MeshStyle.
1.2 the new multichannel distance field, the ultimate solution for bitmap font rendering.
- Draw and upload texture in runtime
So every new text field required texture uploads or vertex/idnex buffer uploads.
skipUnchanchagedFrames keep the backbuffer static for scenes without changes between frames, leveraging a good rendering optimization.
Con Engine supported mainly by one man
Its open source but in most cases community features or pull request are canceled.