Oh Jesus Christ. Do not do this. "Flash" and "high-performance" do not ever belong in the same sentence. Binding of Isaac was a game that, visually, could have run on a Super Nintendo, but it chugged like a tired tortoise on a midrange 2010 laptop. I know Flash is popular, I know it's easy to develop with, but if you use it for "high-performance" game design you are cutting out a huge potential audience of low-end users, because it is miserably slow and inefficient. I should not need cutting-edge hardware to run a simple 2D game.
Edit: For vector games, at least. Raster games made with Flixel seem to run all right. But Flash's native vector implementation is Godawful and deserves to die.
Basically I'm saying I have trouble trusting anyone who thinks that Flash was ever a decent high-performance gaming engine.
"I have trouble trusting anyone who thinks that Flash was ever a decent high-performance gaming engine"
I never said it was -- just that if I have to switch to something anyways, performance is something I want to take into account.
And for what it's worth, flash wasn't high performance, but with proper optimization you could get acceptable performance -- and in the case of our game locking ourselves to 800x600, we got way, way, better framerates and sprite counts than Binding of Isaac (which uses AS2 and unoptimized graphics).
Perhaps I should have been more clear in the article -- "As long as I'm leaving flash behind, I don't want to jump straight over to something else that might have the same performance concerns I've been fighting/hacking against all these years."