Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Wave vs GameMaker Studio 2, the Slant community recommends Wave for most people. In the question“What are the best 2D game engines?” Wave is ranked 33rd while GameMaker Studio 2 is ranked 67th. The most important reason people chose Wave is:
In addition to online [API documentation](http://waveengine.net/Engine/Documentation), the Wave Engine team provides [tutorials](http://www.indiedb.com/engines/wave-engine/tutorials) via IndieDB, plus [sample projects](https://github.com/WaveEngine/Samples) and "[QuickStarters](https://github.com/WaveEngine/QuickStarters)" via GitHub.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Extensive learning material
In addition to online API documentation, the Wave Engine team provides tutorials via IndieDB, plus sample projects and "QuickStarters" via GitHub.
Pro Supports coding in C#, F# and Visual Basic
Wave Engine explicitly supports all three core .Net Platform languages.
Pro Oculus Rift support
The Wave Engine team provides an official, open-source Oculus Rift extension via GitHub.
Pro Many components are open source
Several core components and official extensions of the Wave Engine are publicly hosted on GitHub.
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 Mandatory splash screen
Games and applications made with Wave Engine must display a splash screen advertising it. No splash-free license option is available.
Con Not many tutorials available
Con Outdated UI
The UI looks like it is from Windows XP days. A refresh is much needed.
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
