Particle effects tend to start simple.
You need a hit effect, so you write a small emitter. Then you need smoke. Then sparks. Then a level-up burst. Before long, the game has a folder full of particle code, textures, constants, random functions, timing hacks, and renderer-specific logic.
At that point, VFX has quietly become its own system.
For web games, treating it as one is usually the better approach.
Particle Code Is Not Really Gameplay Code
A particle effect has a lot of values:
- Spawn rate
- Lifetime
- Velocity
- Scale
- Rotation
- Color
- Opacity
- Gravity
- Noise
- Emission shape
- Texture
- Blending
- Trails
- Sub-emitters
You can define all of this in JavaScript or TypeScript.
That does not mean you should.
The problem is not whether code can represent an effect. Of course it can. The problem is iteration.
Imagine tuning an explosion like this:
const explosion = {
spawnRate: 40,
lifetime: 0.45,
speed: 120,
gravity: 30,
startScale: 0.8,
endScale: 0.1
};
Change a number. Reload. Check the effect. Change another number. Reload again.
It works, but it is a poor interface for visual work.
A visual editor gives you a much faster feedback loop while your game only needs to understand the resulting data.
Treat Effects as Assets
Textures are assets.
Audio files are assets.
Maps are assets.
Particle effects can be assets too.
A useful VFX workflow can look something like this:
particle-data/
explosion.json
smoke.json
level-up.json
coin-burst.json
The game loads an effect and tells the particle runtime when to play it.
vfx.play("coin-burst", {
x: player.x,
y: player.y
});
That creates a cleaner boundary.
Gameplay decides when something happens.
The VFX system decides what the visual response looks like.
JSON Has an Underrated Advantage
Text-based particle assets work particularly well in web projects.
They can be committed to Git, reviewed in pull requests, copied between projects, generated by tools, inspected by scripts, and changed without editing application code.
This is one reason tools such as NixieFX are interesting for web game development. The idea is to keep particle authoring separate from the game itself while still producing data that can be loaded by a runtime.
That separation is much closer to how I want VFX to behave in a web project.
Renderer Independence Matters
Web game stacks change surprisingly often.
One project might use PixiJS.
Another might use Three.js.
A third might start with a 2D interface and later add a 3D world.
If the effect itself is completely tied to renderer-specific code, moving it means rewriting it.
An asset-based system creates another option.
The effect description stays separate while a renderer integration figures out how to draw it.
Not every feature will translate perfectly between renderers, but separating the simulation and effect definition from gameplay code is already a large improvement.
It Also Improves Collaboration
Consider a team with one gameplay developer and one technical artist.
If effects live directly inside game classes, both people are editing the same application code.
If effects are separate assets, the workflow becomes simpler.
The developer exposes something like:
playEffect("enemy-death", position);
The person working on VFX can change the actual enemy death effect without touching combat logic.
Even on a solo project this matters.
You are separating your programmer work from your visual work, which reduces unnecessary context switching.
Exporting Is Better Than Loading Editor Data Directly
There is one additional boundary worth keeping.
Your editor project and your shipped game data do not have to be the same thing.
An authoring project may contain source textures, metadata, temporary files, editor settings, and effects that are still being tested.
The game only needs the final files required at runtime.
A good pipeline therefore looks like this:
authoring files
|
v
validation
|
v
export
|
v
runtime bundle
That is the same basic pattern used by larger game engines, but there is no reason web games cannot use it too.
The Main Benefit Is Boring, and That Is Good
Separating VFX from gameplay is not a revolutionary architecture.
It simply removes friction.
Your game code becomes easier to read.
Effects become easier to tune.
Assets become easier to version.
Renderer integrations become easier to replace.
Once your project contains more than a handful of particle effects, those small improvements start adding up.
Web games already have good tooling for code, assets, builds, and deployment.
VFX deserves the same treatment.
