The Magic Circle… Again?

Alright so we have Yee over here giving examples of how the distinction between play and work is getting  blurry and have frustrated Zimmerman defending his stance on the magic circle, which Consalvo is saying does not exist.  Yee mentions the amount of time players spend playing MMORPG’s, making it almost an obligation to pay it in order to progress because of the time commitment it requires.  To refute scholars that see as play never having economic value, but this has been disproven, he gives the example of selling your own game online for real currency.  He sees that playing these types of games is training us to be better workers and ends with a quote of someone that is clearly addicted to playing EverQuest. Zimmerman wants to point out that Huizinga is not responsible for the entire magic circle debate but rather himself and Katie Salen. He goes back to meanings and how during play, we take on new meanings by playing. He emphasizes that there is no harsh line of the circle and that the individual must consider it either open or closed. He re-stresses (in a pretty harsh manner) that the magic circle is “when a game is being played, new meanings are generated. These meanings mix elements intrinsic to the game and elements outside the game” (Zimmerman, 7).  Zimmerman mentions also mentions Consalvo, as he disagrees with her ideas, in his rant. She says that players always have prior experiences and real-world desires that they cannot help but bring to the game which affects gameplay. She believes that one cannot dismiss that real-life rules do apply in the game. Still, Consalvo  is more interested with cheating and how we “we need the context of the act to understand it, or we fail to do justice to the complexity and richness of MMOs and digital games (Consalvo, 10) I still don’t understand why each side is stuck on the Magic Circle though, someone needs to come up with a fresh topic.