The Implications of Making a Game In Facebook...and Web 2.0 or Something

So a couple of fellow Computer Science students and myself, who are also friends (and also in CS280 and loving life), are throwing around the idea of making a social type game. We were looking at ideas for games as we kind of know a little bit, but we didn't want to get too ambitious (we'd rather finish a project than have a pretty demo). We've kind of determined the game we'll be doing and the dynamic, but then we had to decide on how to program it...

We looked at our varying degree of knowledge between the few of us, and threw around a couple of ideas as to how to code it and get it out there. There's the first obvious one, C++, but that could be a large undertaking to work with that. We then looked at a pre-made game engine like Unreal, but that could make a low tech game look even worse (or it'd take a lot of effort to create some post-processing effects to make it look low tech). There were some other options we threw around like C# and XNA, but we then thought we'd try our hand at a Facebook game after reading how companies like Zynga (http://www.zynga.com/) who were relatively inexperienced at making Facebook games managed to do something with it. So we've decided on a Facebook type game, using Flash, which we honestly don't know a thing about. As nerdy as it sounds we thought this would be a fun summer project to make a game AND learn flash at the sametime. The only question is what are the downsides of working with Facebook?



- The main thing once again is learning Flash. How hard is it? How easy is it to use? We have no idea. After reading about Zynga kind of going with the flow and not necessarily being huge Flash gurus though, that eased our pain a little bit.

+ Tons of people are on Facebook, so that was a major positive for us. Not so much to make it big (we are students afterall), but as a way to get as much feedback as we can and hopefully learn to be better programmers (and having something meaningful to put on the resume!).

- Games on Facebook are definitely low tech and socially focused, this means if we want to get anything out of this project we still need to make sure we're not eating up all our time trying to make some really complex stuff that won't even be appreciated or noticed.

+ On the opposite end of the spectrum, the simplicity might actually help. Working within stricter boundaries might teach us a thing or two about coding and make sure that we keep it simple and to the point.

Those are just a few of the main implications we had to take into account. I think we'll understand more as we get this rolling. Who knows, we'll probably even get some of the early code and implementation of the ideas we have up here. The main thing though, is that Facebook much like a lot of Web 2.0 is a very social atmosphere so the main thing is to make something that appeals to the more casual person, while hopefully poking a little fun at the more hardcore gamer (have I said too much?).

More to come...

What Web 2.0 REALLY Means...

Just thought I'd make a quick post as I'm quite busy right now, but I thought I'd quickly comment on what being connected an integrated really means to me.

Today at school our group all transferred files and shared some YouTube videos we made for a school project on our laptops in class. I took us 20 minutes and we all had all the info we needed to finish up our project.

I had to go to Saskatoon for some family business today, so right now I'm writing this, using Dropbox to get files off of my home PC to work on school work while away from home and I was able to access my school group's wiki to edit everyone's content. I downloaded a programing assignment off of an instructor's site and got the notes off of URCourse (University website) because I wasn't able to print them off at home. Tomorrow I'm going to map out all the bike shops I want to go to on Google Maps as I don't know directions to well and I'm a frustrated driver, so it will save me lots of time.

Sure there's Facebook, Myspace and all those Web 2.0 things, but at the end of the day what saves me time is what matters most to me, and I can't help but feel a bit spoiled by technology. If people want to see me drunk in a social setting, they can give me a call, but I'm in no rush to put it online. If I can find where to buy handlebars though...

Web 2.0 vs Real Life...WEB 2.0 WINS!

Ok so I know the last three posts were about Apple/Windows/Linux gadgetry and how they integrate into Web 2.0 and thus how people interface with it. This week I guess I'll switch it up a bit with gaming and people who take the whole virtual life gaming too far. After all, Web 2.0 is about integrating into the web and virtual life gaming in a sense epitomizes the whole Web 2.0 idea.

The reason this all came up is because I read an article on cnn.com (don't hate don't hate) here and it talks about a South Korean couple who neglected their actual real life infant to raise a virtual child character in an online game. They've been charged and are obviously looking at jail time. There's no mental defense or anything like that, they've basically been straight out neglecting their child and ducking the responsibilities of parenting and escape reality with a game.

In a way the whole Web 2.0 idea really caught on with them; they've basically been extremely caught up in the game that they lost touch with reality. They are obviously an extreme case, but isn't that the ultimate goal of these games? Games and websites like Facebook are now marketed with ads and pay schemes to benefit the more people use their services. Obviously they all don't say they want people to get obsessed but at the same time a lot of these services don't do anything to snap them out of it. Companies like Firaxis put an ingame clock, timer, and alarm clock in Civilization IV to help people monitor their time and make sure they don't forget about the real world.

However, looking at a screenshot of this game Prius Online:


It looks pretty ridiculously stupid so maybe people are just idiots (and bad parents).

Moderation, I guess. No one should have to teach you that.

Why Not Jolicloud (or something else geeky and Linuxy)?

So I’m starting to think I might have one of the most potentially bipolar blogs about technology. I’ve also noticed how I seem to like to focus on the battle between Windows and it’s gear, and Apple and it’s stuff. So basically I’m going to try and make that my focus of these blogs, instead of my randomness. Well I shouldn’t say that; there will probably be more randomness. I’ll post some pictures of cheetah’s (which are sweet) in the next post maybe to cleanse the palette of this blog. ANYWAYS...

So yes, Apple stuff vs Microsoft stuff blah blah blah. Why not include Linux stuff? Sure. Specifically Ubuntu and even more specifically Jolicloud. What brought this up was that a few days ago, I was typing away on my laptop (Sony Vaio -> Windows 7) next to my friend/classmate who was doing his thing on his Macbook (regular one with Snow Leopard) and I got to thinking, “Why PC? Why Mac?” and not to hate because I like and use Apple and Microsoft products, but I got to thinking, why do people pay so much more for Macs? I still honestly don’t get it. They’re based off Intel chipsets and the software you can often get for free or buy a much cheaper PC laptop and get even better software (high end Mac or PC software that is, think Garageband vs Cubase if you’re into music). Okay I get it now, the layout is much nice and more intuitive, as the argument goes. I do get that…sort of. Windows 7 is similar now, different for sure, but the functionality is the same or can be made to be the same on either Snow Leopard or Windows 7. So I get it now, people like shiny pretty things! That explains why millions don’t tune in to watch Miss Plus Size America. Ok I get that, plus people often have such a disdain for Windows that in comparison they like Macs that much more(no everyone, but judging by Apple’s marketing strategy that’s the demographic they like to market to most).

So all of this makes sense to me and I can understand why people choose what they do. In a Web 2.0 (see how I included it there?) era people use Windows or Macs to access many of the same things. I mostly see students on Facebook on either a Mac or PC at the University here and it looks exactly the same, so the market for Laptops/Netbooks and OSes, in a sense, is a somewhat level playing field. This all makes me wonder why we we don’t see many if any laptops and netbooks shipping with Linux, and more notably Ubuntu or Jolicloud. I got my girlfriend a Samsung NC10 (I know ladies, I’m a dream come true) and it came with XP but I see some Samsungs are now shipping with Jolicloud. Which I think is sweet. Take a look at it here (keep in mind it's for netbooks):


It's a very straightforward and user friendly interface. In fact it's very similar to an iPhone (which are sweet). Jolicloud and Ubuntu are also free. So why don't we see more linux out of the box computers? They have even more full features on a standard install than basic Windows 7 and just as much as Snow Leopard (well close), and once again it's free. Now let's look at two screenshots of Ubuntu, the first is the current screen and the second is a concept view that is supposed to be implemented in the next major build:





We can see how the first option is very decluttered and how the second pic looks very similar to OSX (but you can get Ubuntu to look somewhat like OSX anyways). Ubuntu is very secure (less susceptible than a Mac or PC) and it's got tons of free software. It's software center and self organization are also great...amazing actually. I do love Windows due to the fact I can play Street Fighter in it and code in Visual Studio, but you can't play many games on Ubuntu or use Windows software on it, but you can't do this on a Mac either (you can run the same virtual pc programs on either though). Really I love Ubuntu, and I still don't get why we don't see more of Linux on laptops and netbooks out of the gate (I remember seeing yellow penguin boxes in tons of shops 10 years ago...as a kid). You get all the slick easiness and access to all the web 2.0 features you get with a Mac plus you get an extra layer of open source accessibility to tweak and program it yourself if you choose to go that route.

Post some comments if you have some insights in this...love to hear it.