Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing GameFlow + Unity vs ct.js, the Slant community recommends ct.js for most people. In the question“What are the best game engines for beginners and non-programmers?” ct.js is ranked 23rd while GameFlow + Unity is ranked 26th. The most important reason people chose ct.js is:
ct.js is bundled with examples, docs, and easy to follow tutorials. Documentation and tutorials are available in a side panel on every screen.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Adds an abstraction layer that helps create the game logic
It is almost like talking with Unity naturally. Actions in Unity can be coded using regular English more-so than with other game engines, which makes it much easier for beginners.
Pro None of boxes and arrows, perfectly integrated into the workflow of Unity
Almost all visual scripting solutions for Unity are based on nodes, boxes and arrows, GameFlow changes this way of working incorporating actions blocks and actions using drag and drop.
Pro Excellent product
The developer supports the users quickly and with detailed responses. He is knowledgeable on the Unity API as well as developing videogames.
Pro Integrated in the Unity inspector
No windows apart, work with GameFlow from the own Unity inspector
Pro Can achieve in minutes what would take hours with classical scripting
Due to its innovative block system and without follow tutorials or look documentation will be able to create actions within five minutes in Unity.
Pro An effective advanced prototyping and scripting tool
GameFlow allows to complete a videogame in half an hour.
Pro Beginner-friendly
ct.js is bundled with examples, docs, and easy to follow tutorials. Documentation and tutorials are available in a side panel on every screen.
Pro Skeletal animations with DragonBones support
You can import skeletal sprites and animations from DragonBones, which is also free. Skeletal animations are added to objects through code; developers can listen to marked events in animation, and ct.js automatically associates sounds in a DragonBones project with the game's assets.
Pro Good code editor
The built-in code editor comes with error checking, type checks, code completions accompanied with docs, multiple cursors support, and other modern features.
Pro Open source (MIT)
This means that no one will ever put any features behind a paywall and that you can reliably use ct.js in any projects without worrying about licensing. And you can hack on ct.js!
The repo is at https://github.com/ct-js/ct-js
Pro Tileset support
ct.js supports tiles in rooms, including collision checks and some extra editor tools, like bulk migration to a new tile layer or shifting by an exact value.
Pro WebGL and WebGL2 support
Starting with v1.0.0-next-1, you can now write WebGL games. WebGL support is based on Pixi.js.
Pro Modular approach
ct.js has a "Core" library that provides basic drawing functions, room and asset management, and mouse interactions. Any other functions are added to projects as "catmods", or simply modules. These modules can be enabled or disabled in one click, and can inject their code in different game loop stages, e.g. after drawing all the objects, leaving a room, or when a new object is created.
Pro Applicable to most genres
ct.js aims to be a general game engine and provides tools in making games of any genre.
Pro Dialogue and visual novel system with support for Yarn
A module ct.yarn allows developers to import a YarnSpinner project to create branching, data-driven dialogues and visual novels. An example is also bundled with ct.js.
The dialogue tree is made in a separate app, though.
Pro Real-time particle system editor
v1.3 brings a particle system editor, which displays a preview sprite for proper attachment of emitter to visual elements, and allows combining more than one emitter with different particles into one effect. With these, even the creation of complex, multi-step effects becomes easy. The editor comes with dozens ready-made textures for faster prototyping.
Cons
Con The documentation is not very extensive
The documentation for GameFlow could use some work. It's not very extensive and it hardly covers everything needed to know to build a game.
Con Performance could be better for 2D
Performance can be a real issue with 2D games. Unity 3D is actually a 3D game engine, and drags a lot of overhead with it.
For mobile, one could never achieve the performance of more specialized 2D engines with Unity3D.
Con Tile editing is a chore
No live brushes with automatic corner drawing, no fills or rectangular/linear placement. All tiles should be placed by hand, with a "Shift" key to place multiple tiles at once. This will make you ragequit if you want to make sophisticated RPG scenes :D
Con Slower than native games
JavaScript and WebGL are fast, but they will always lose in performance if compared to native games, so it may be a bad choice for graphics-heavy games.
