Pros of Phaser

• More mature and stable project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and tutorials available
• Wider range of features and plugins

Cons of Phaser

• Larger file size, which may impact load times
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May include unnecessary features for simpler projects

Code Comparison

Phaser (v3):

const config = {
    type: Phaser.AUTO,
    width: 800,
    height: 600,
    scene: {
        create: create
    }
};

const game = new Phaser.Game(config);

function create() {
    this.add.text(400, 300, 'Hello World', { fontSize: '32px' }).setOrigin(0.5);
}

Phaser CE (v2):

var game = new Phaser.Game(800, 600, Phaser.AUTO, '', { create: create });

function create() {
    var text = game.add.text(game.world.centerX, game.world.centerY, 'Hello World', { fontSize: '32px' });
    text.anchor.setTo(0.5, 0.5);
}

The main differences in the code examples are the configuration setup and the way game objects are created and positioned. Phaser v3 uses a more modular approach with scenes, while Phaser CE (v2) uses a more straightforward global game object.

Pros of PixiJS

• Lighter weight and faster rendering performance
• More flexible and customizable for advanced graphics manipulation
• Better suited for complex animations and interactive visualizations

Cons of PixiJS

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less built-in game-specific features and utilities
• Requires more manual setup for game development

Code Comparison

PixiJS (basic setup):

const app = new PIXI.Application({ width: 800, height: 600 });
document.body.appendChild(app.view);
const sprite = PIXI.Sprite.from('image.png');
app.stage.addChild(sprite);

Phaser (basic setup):

const config = { width: 800, height: 600, scene: { preload, create } };
const game = new Phaser.Game(config);
function preload() { this.load.image('sprite', 'image.png'); }
function create() { this.add.image(400, 300, 'sprite'); }

PixiJS is a powerful rendering engine focused on 2D graphics, while Phaser is a complete game framework built on top of PixiJS. PixiJS offers more flexibility for custom graphics applications but requires more setup for game development. Phaser provides a more comprehensive toolkit for game creation out of the box, making it easier for beginners to get started with game development.

Pros of melonJS

• Lighter weight and more minimalistic, potentially better for simpler games
• Built-in physics engine optimized for platformers
• Easier learning curve for beginners

Cons of melonJS

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Phaser
• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Fewer advanced features and plugins available

Code Comparison

melonJS:

me.game.onload = function() {
    me.state.set(me.state.PLAY, new PlayScreen());
    me.state.change(me.state.PLAY);
};

Phaser:

const config = { scene: PlayScene };
const game = new Phaser.Game(config);

class PlayScene extends Phaser.Scene {
    create() { /* game logic */ }
}

Summary

melonJS is a lightweight HTML5 game engine that excels in simplicity and ease of use, particularly for platformer games. It offers a built-in physics engine and a gentler learning curve for beginners. However, it has a smaller community and fewer advanced features compared to Phaser.

Phaser, on the other hand, is a more robust and feature-rich game framework with a larger ecosystem and more frequent updates. It provides more advanced capabilities and a wider range of plugins, but may have a steeper learning curve for newcomers.

The choice between the two depends on the project's complexity, desired features, and the developer's experience level.

Pros of cocos2d-html5

• More comprehensive framework with a wider range of features for game development
• Better suited for complex, large-scale game projects
• Stronger support for cross-platform development, including mobile platforms

Cons of cocos2d-html5

• Steeper learning curve compared to Phaser
• Less active community and fewer updates in recent years
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

Phaser (creating a simple sprite):

var game = new Phaser.Game(800, 600, Phaser.AUTO, 'gameDiv');
var sprite = game.add.sprite(400, 300, 'playerSprite');

cocos2d-html5 (creating a simple sprite):

var layer = new cc.Layer();
var sprite = new cc.Sprite("player.png");
sprite.setPosition(400, 300);
layer.addChild(sprite);

Both frameworks offer straightforward ways to create and position sprites, but Phaser's syntax is generally more concise and intuitive for beginners. cocos2d-html5 provides more granular control over the game structure, which can be beneficial for complex projects but may require more setup code.

Pros of Crafty

• Lightweight and modular architecture, allowing for easier customization
• Entity-Component-System (ECS) design, which can be more flexible for complex game structures
• Simpler learning curve for developers familiar with traditional object-oriented programming

Cons of Crafty

• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to Phaser
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower bug fixes
• Limited built-in features, requiring more manual implementation for advanced game mechanics

Code Comparison

Crafty:

Crafty.e('2D, DOM, Color')
  .attr({x: 0, y: 0, w: 100, h: 100})
  .color('#FF0000');

Phaser:

this.add.rectangle(0, 0, 100, 100, 0xFF0000);

Both examples create a red rectangle, but Crafty uses its entity-component system, while Phaser uses a more straightforward method call. Crafty's approach allows for more modular and extensible game objects, while Phaser's syntax is more concise and immediately understandable for simple shapes.

Pros of Kiwi.js

• Smaller file size and potentially faster load times
• More modular architecture, allowing for easier customization
• Better suited for simpler 2D games and prototypes

Cons of Kiwi.js

• Less active development and smaller community compared to Phaser
• Fewer features and plugins available out-of-the-box
• Limited documentation and learning resources

Code Comparison

Kiwi.js:

var game = new Kiwi.Game('content', 'MyGame', state, { renderer: Kiwi.RENDERER_WEBGL });
var state = new Kiwi.State('MyState');
state.create = function () {
    this.sprite = new Kiwi.GameObjects.Sprite(this, this.textures.sprite, 100, 100);
    this.addChild(this.sprite);
};

Phaser:

var config = { type: Phaser.AUTO, width: 800, height: 600, scene: { create: create } };
var game = new Phaser.Game(config);
function create() {
    this.add.sprite(100, 100, 'sprite');
}

Both frameworks offer similar functionality for creating 2D games, but Phaser has a more extensive feature set and larger community support. Kiwi.js may be preferable for smaller projects or developers seeking a more lightweight solution.