Engine selection

Pick tools that match delivery target, interaction model, and team constraints. Engines serve the game type — not the reverse.

Fit questions (ask first)

1. Platform: Web, mobile, PC, console, VR?
2. Primary loop: Action/physics, turn-based, narrative branch, management/UI, hybrid?
3. Presentation: Full-screen canvas, DOM/UI chrome, or both?
4. Toolchain: No-build / ESM OK, or bundler + editor OK?
5. Authoring: Code-only, or designers need Twine/Ink/Godot/Unity editors?

Architecture patterns

Web — decision tree

What type of game?
│
├── Mostly DOM / panels / forms / text UI
│   ├── + small arcade/spatial challenges
│   │     └── Hybrid: custom shell + guest
│   │         Raw Canvas/WebGL → Kaplay → Phaser → PixiJS
│   └── + branching story
│         └── Ink (inkjs) or Twine export → host in DOM
│
├── Full-screen 2D game
│   ├── Full gameplay features (scenes, physics, input)
│   │     └── Phaser 4  (or Kaplay if you want lighter/faster prototype)
│   └── Mostly rendering / custom systems
│         └── PixiJS 8  (or Raw Canvas/WebGL if tiny scope)
│
└── Full-screen 3D game
    ├── Full engine / physics / XR
    │     └── Babylon.js
    └── Rendering-focused / lighter
          └── Three.js

Quick comparison (web & common exports)

Editor-first web shells (Construct, GDevelop) fit visual prototyping; weaker when you need versioned code-first content pipelines.

Non-web defaults (see also platform skills)

Anti-patterns

When to Use

Use when choosing or comparing game engines/frameworks before implementation, especially for hybrid DOM+canvas or narrative-first products.

Limitations

• Does not replace platform skills (game-development/web-games, game-development/pc-games, …).
• Final choice still depends on team skill and shipping constraints.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.