This discussion seems to always become the center of attention. Zimmerman continues his attempts to break apart the ideology of the magic circle. But as we study and understand the act of gameplay, we know that its dependent on the actions of the player. We look into limitations, context, and justification as what causes us to question our values and ethics. But mind you a lot of the articles written that support most of these claims were written before the creation of digital gaming. Zimmerman agreed on Consalvo’s claims and ideas that players have previous desires that they bring into the games which affects the gaming community and gameplay. Which leads us to our topic of cheating.
Consolvo will agree that cheating does and will always occur in video games as well as the magic circle. She believes that since that’s possible, there is no such thing as a magic circle. Since they break the circle, the gaming experience is altered, and outcomes are changed. But we cannot stop at structures as a way of understanding the gameplay experience. This is Consolvo’s, there is no magic circle.
Game Studies 
I think I found my self caught in between these two papers much like the ludologist and narratologist arguments. While I think Consalvo brought up a lot of good points, Zimmerman, I believe, ultimately breaks it down to the idea that people seem to be inventing the concept of the Magic Circle as this enforced structure. What I pulled from both, more so leaning towards Zimmerman, is that while yes we do project our meanings onto the game and pull the meanings that we are inclined to away from the game, it comes down to the idea that the Magic Circle, as a concept, is almost like a eutopia as a concept. It was, in my opinion, never meant to be applied to every game, and not necessarily meant to be applied to any real world game, which I think is what Zimmerman is getting at. The Magic Circle is purely a concept of how to form play and game and scholars such as Consalvo try to destroy it through the perspective that it must be applied to every game for it exist which Zimmerman takes as weak research and development as they appear to be attacking something that they themselves invented.
LikeLike
I struggled a bit with the reading because he seemed to ramble on about things instead of explaining what it is he meant about the magic circle. In comparison with Consalvo’s theory on the magic, I feel as though Zimmerman is more trying to take ownership for a term instead of trying to debunk the theory.
LikeLike