Why I Chose libGDX Over Unity for My First 2D Game

Muhammad Daffa — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 02:13:04 +0000

When the itch to make a game hits, but the engine feels too heavy

I remember the night I stared at Unity’s splash screen, wondering if I had to wrestle with a visual editor, scene hierarchy, and a mountain of packages just to get a single sprite moving. The idea of building a tiny 2D platformer felt buried under layers of abstraction I didn’t need. That’s when I dug into libGDX, a name I’d heard in a few Reddit threads but never actually tried.

“If you want control, you have to write code. If you want a visual editor, you give up some control.” – my unofficial mantra during that experiment.

What you’ll walk away with

Why a code‑first framework can feel faster for small games
The practical pain points beginners hit when they first open a libGDX project
When libGDX shines and when you should politely decline it

libGDX in plain English

At its core, libGDX is a Java‑based game framework. It gives you the low‑level building blocks—rendering, input handling, asset management—without imposing a scene editor or a drag‑and‑drop workflow. Think of it as a toolbox rather than a fully assembled workshop. You write the main loop yourself, you decide how assets are loaded, and you ship to desktop, Android, and web (via GWT) from the same codebase.

That distinction matters. Unity and Godot ship with an editor that looks like a game already; libGDX hands you a blank canvas and says, “Write the canvas.”

The feeling of control vs. the comfort of a visual editor

When I first opened the generated core module in IntelliJ, the only thing that greeted me was a DesktopLauncher class with a tiny LwjglApplication. No drag‑and‑drop hierarchy, no inspector panels, just a create() method waiting for me to sprinkle some code. That rawness can be intimidating, but it also feels empowering. Every pixel that appears on screen is the result of a line I wrote, not a hidden script the editor runs behind the scenes.

Unity’s inspector lets you tweak a sprite’s position in a GUI, which is great for rapid iteration, but you quickly discover you’re tied to the editor. Exporting to Android means the Unity build pipeline runs, and you spend minutes waiting for the editor to re‑import assets you barely touched. With libGDX, a quick gradlew desktop:run launches the game in seconds, and any Java change is reflected on the next run.

The usual stumbling blocks for newcomers

Project setup feels manual – The Gradle scripts generated by the gdx-setup wizard are functional, but they’re not a one‑click “Create New Project” button. You’ll spend a few minutes tweaking the build.gradle files, especially if you want to add a third‑party library.
No visual editor – There’s nothing to click and drag. All asset placement, animation timing, and UI layout happen in code or external tools (e.g., TexturePacker). That can feel like a regression if you’re used to Unity’s scene view.
Asset pipeline quirks – libGDX expects assets in a specific folder structure (assets/ for each platform). Forgetting to copy a texture into the Android module’s assets folder is a classic “Why does it work on desktop but not on my phone?” moment.

I spent an entire afternoon hunting down a missing png that only failed on Android. The fix was a single line in the android module’s build.gradle to include the assets folder. Small, but a reminder that the framework trusts you to keep things tidy.

A realistic first project: a simple 2D “catch‑the‑falling‑object” game

Instead of diving straight into a full‑blown RPG, I started with a single‑screen game where the player moves a bucket left and right to catch falling apples. The scope is narrow enough to finish in a weekend, yet it forces you to touch every major subsystem:

Input – Keyboard or touch handling.
Rendering – SpriteBatch for drawing textures.
Asset management – Loading textures, sounds, and disposing of them.
Screen management – Switching from a start menu to the gameplay screen.
Cross‑platform testing – Running the same code on desktop and an Android emulator.

Because libGDX abstracts the platform layer, the same Game class runs everywhere. The only platform‑specific code lives in the launchers (DesktopLauncher, AndroidLauncher, HtmlLauncher). That separation kept my codebase clean and gave me confidence that the game would behave the same on a phone as it did on my laptop.

When libGDX is the right tool – and when it isn’t

Great fit

You enjoy writing code more than fiddling with UI panels.
The game is 2D, lightweight, and targeted at multiple platforms.
You want full control over the rendering pipeline (e.g., custom shaders, precise batching).
You’re comfortable with Java/Kotlin (or willing to learn).

Not a good fit

Your vision includes complex 3D scenes, physics, or a large team of artists who rely on a visual workflow.
You need out‑of‑the‑box networking, multiplayer, or advanced animation tools that are baked into engines like Unity.
You’re on a tight deadline and can’t afford the initial setup overhead.

In those latter cases, the time you spend wrestling with Gradle and asset pipelines can outweigh the benefits of libGDX’s flexibility.

Grounded takeaway

If you’re the kind of developer who feels a surge of satisfaction every time a line of code makes something appear on screen, libGDX is worth a try. It forces you to understand the fundamentals—render loops, input polling, asset lifecycles—rather than hiding them behind a polished editor. That knowledge pays off later, whether you stay in the libGDX ecosystem or migrate to a larger engine.

But don’t mistake “lightweight” for “easy.” The lack of a visual editor means you’ll spend more time setting up the project and debugging asset paths. If those chores feel like a roadblock, a more heavyweight engine might actually get you to ship faster.

Either way, the most important thing is to start small, finish something, and let the experience guide the next decision. Happy coding!

Forem: Muhammad Daffa