Proposal review: "RAWAR"

Review of proposal: "RAWAR: Virtual Battleground for Settling Online Disputes

Proposal author:  Cameron Smith

(blog: http://cs460se.blogspot.com/)

Proposal reviewer: James Vickers (jvick3@unm.edu)

Proposal restatement

            The proposal is to make a 3D web game where people having disputes on the internet can invite the other party to settle matters in a virtual fight.  The program also keeps a database to keep track of it's users actions.  The revenue for the project is to come from advertising and selling user data.

Reviewer reaction

            It's an interesting idea that reminds me of the show Celebrity Deathmatch, which was popular when I was a lad.  One thing I think the proposal needs to address is that some facilities to 'resolve' online disputes by fighting do exist, in that people can challenge each other to existing online multiplier games such as Call of Duty.  I understand, however, that the point of this project is to provide a game that anyone can play.  Making revenue from advertising sounds fine, but we need more info on the "selling user data" part.  Who buys the data and why?  What kind of data can we collect on participants in these games?

Quantitative scores

Format: 3

            Format is OK, but could be improved.  Would like to see charts or graphs for budget and timeline portions, as they are easier to read.

Writing: 4

            Writing style is good overall, but paper could use proofreading.  The wrong words are used in a couple places by accident.

Goals and tasks: 3

            The how-to of the invitation to the online virtual fight is well-described, but the gameplay itself could more description.  The timeline is detailed, but some lines in it are unclear, such as "develop a name for the game".  Doesn't the game already have a name ("RAWAR")?  Also, how detailed is the physics engine going to get?  Is there any idea of using an existing physics engine, if available?

Scope: 5

            This project consists of a 3D fighting game, with the special purpose of allowing people to virtually back up their trash talk with fighting. 

Plausibility: 4

            I am concerned that this game in particular needs to be super good for the whole system to work.  With the purpose of the project being a central place people come to resolve online grievances, the game needs to be good enough that no one scoffs when invited to it.  The short time frame to make the game is acknowledged in the proposal, but it is not discussed how much time or money this project will require to fully complete.  Will the game be a fully-featured competitor to state-of-the-art fighting games, or will it be simple in comparison?  However, time and money aside, making a game of this sort is totally possible.

Novelty:  4

            While I've never heard of a game whose explicit purpose is for people to meet and fight over things said on the internet, there are some facilities to do this already, such as online multiplayer gaming.  That is not to say there isn't room for a game geared specifically to this purpose.

Stakeholder identification: 1

            From reading the proposal, I'm inclined the believe this game is intended for everyone on the internet.  However, I would think this game is more likely to succeed with say, 18-year-olds than 40-year-olds.  It would also be helpful to hear more about advertisers who might buy space on the site (i.e. energy drinks) and what kinds of companies would be interested in purchasing user information.  Is there any notion of this product's interaction with existing social media (as this is somewhat related)?  Is there concern about checking the age of users (and how much of a farce this tends to be) if the game is to be particularly violent?

Support and impact: 2

            One question that the proposal needs to address is what kind of companies would advertise on the site, which is the main source of revenue claimed.  What's the target audience of the game?  Age?  Income?  Education level?  This questions must be answered for potential advertisers.  It is also not clear how much time and money the project will require to reach a mature enough state to draw advertising revenue for continued development and/or profit.

Evidence:  3

            Proposal cites existing technologies on which the game can be built.  A detailed user story is given.  The motivation of building this game and the issue it solves (lack of resolution to grievances between people online) is clearly described and makes basic sense.  The writer shows knowledge of the principles of game design and graphics.  However, the proposal needs more details on the budget in order to convince people it's not going to bankrupt them.  Some things are listed in the budget without the estimated costs associated with them.  This is scary to an investor!

Challenges and risks: 4

            The proposal acknowledges that game development of this magnitude will be non-trivial.  The planned used of WebGL is stated as a risk because of it's recent construction and lack of long-standing use.  A challenge which I feel exists, but is not listed in the proposal, is that the project could lose support before it can get to a revenue-generating state.  This goes along with the statement that developing a good game will cost high in time and therefore money.  It is a large risk on this project because the advertising revenue expected is dependent on high traffic to the site, something that will fall through if the game does not mature fast enough.