This reading was very straight forward and to the point when it comes down to the magi circle but still very scholarly. This reading is a piggy back off of Mia Consalvo reading about it being no magic circle. We cannot possibly continue to uphold the notion that games are separate from our everyday live, when it is indeed a part of some players everyday lives. Zimmerman has pointed out in this reading that the phenomenon of the magic circle is a case proven in which differences in these aims of research are productive yet, can be very confusing and order trigger misunderstandings. I can totally see how Zimmerman would feel this way about the magic circle concept. Like i talked about in my last blog about is Consalvo’s article, there has been a lot of contradiction with game scholars involving this “magic circle” idea.
One of my favorite parts of this reading when Zimmerman was honing in on the magic circle being used as a concept for game design. the “magic circle” is a very similar concept to the book Rules of play. This concept and this book remind us of how meaning happens. Games have the ability to show us how certain meanings can emerge. Zimmerman feels as if this is hardly a cause for debate, i agree with him to a certain extent just as i agree with Mia Consalvo about the magical circle. Taking those boundaries and restrictions away from the concept of the magic circle can open up so many more outlooks of meanings tied that are tied to the elements that designers actually create.
It is an art to have differences in concepts, methods, and aims that we can accept as a whole for the love of the game world when talking about the magic circle. I agree with Zimmerman that we should stop chasing the the ghost of the magic circle joke, because he does not exist.
Game Studies 