Best engine or toolkit for 2d, with some 3d, in 2016

[Kaisen]

Hi there, I've been interested in js game dev for a while and have been checking out the current engines and toolkits available.
So far it seems to me that Phaser is the best one out there. I'm looking for performance and basic features(physics, particles, tilemap support, etc), and frankly I'm moving away from Editor focused engines. Lately i've been more keen on using fully featured, but as minimal as possible, solutions.
Cocos2d-js seemed like a nice choice also, but I found a lot less docs on it that phaser. I've checked out impact.js but not sure it's still a good alternative. I've tried other tools and even non js engines that export small builds to hmtl5, Defold being the winner here.(5mb for a small project, really fast loading)
I'm familiar with the other engines out there like unity or gms, but they are not the focus.

Also, Ideally i'd like an engine to have some 3d components, like 3d colliders and whatnot, or even the small possibility of adding static 3D models, etc.
It seems to me that phaser can support that and maybe even someone has added it here.(the 3d colliders part)

Let me know what you think.
 

[plicatibu]

I like both Phaser, cocos2d-js and Openfl.

That said, if your main interest is HTML5, Phaser is the best pick.

The big advantages of Phaser, on my opinion, are:

- a lot of documentation

- a lot of examples

- feature full

- so ease to learn and use

- a wonderful community.

If you stick with it, you won't regret.

[plicatibu]

If you plan to develop for mobile too, depending on your needs of performance, cocos2d-js may be a better option.

Why ?

Because while you would rely solutions like cocoonjs or Intel XDK in order to generate mobile apps, cocos2d-js has an approach that provides better performance.

It uses Mozilla's engine that is made in C++ to render the JavaScript.

Up to now it seems the similar to other solutions do, right?

The differences are:

- Your JavaScript code is converted to byte code, so there's no need to compile it at run time (also, the byte code is smaller than source code)

- they implemented the cocos2d-x framework an extension of the SpiderMonkey (the Mozilla's engine) in C++. This is what gives the mobile version a much better performance than what's possible using solutions like Cordova.In traditional tools to generate native apps from JavaScript, all the code will be interpreted. 

cocos2d-js solution is much beautiful.

Imagine if someone implemented Phaser framework in C++ as an extension of a browser render like WebKit or SmartMonkey and generated the mobile binaries packaging it with our games written in JavaScript... It would be amazing... 

[Kaisen]

@plicatibu
I think you are right about cocos2d-js it is the better choice, specially with cocos creator in the loop, it's a win/win situation.

Another thing that i keep in mind is that webassembly is coming, and there is a good chance that it will make js engines obsolete, given that you can thereafter run C++ games on the browser with not-as-big files as they currently are and optimal performance.

Thanks for the input!

[Fatalist]

13 hours ago, Kaisen said:

Another thing that i keep in mind is that webassembly is coming, and there is a good chance that it will make js engines obsolete

2

I would say it will make c++ engines more viable for the web, but javascript will still have some advantages - faster iteration(no build times), easier debugging, easier to use existing js libraries(for input, sound, networking, GUI toolkits), so I don't think it will make js obsolete.