In Consalvo’s article he argues that the concept of a magic circle does not exist and that people should reject the concept entirely. The space in which people play games board games, video games, etc. is intertwined with that of reality to an extensive level. Consalvo also states that he and Katie Salen were the ones to take the blame for the idea of the magic circle, while Huizinga got off the hook. Now, both Salen and Consalvo are stuck with the idea of this magic circle that created concepts such as Mr. Bungle and are probably taking a majority of the backlash for it.
I think this article is an interesting rebuff, although the theorists opinions definitely progressed and they acknowledge it, many people can still see the lasting effects of the first theory on the industry and in the gaming culture itself. Even with board games the two worlds/realities are not separate because one inevitably has consequences on the other. I know for myself I have personally felt the climate of a room or interaction intensify if I am playing against someone or maybe become more playful. In that sense the magic circle doesn’t exist because the game being played always has resounding effects that carry on to the “outside” world.
I notice this effect especially when it comes to the sore losers. Sore losers will stay mad at you for a certain amount of time, either until they beat you or until you let them win. They can accuse you of cheating or they will plot your downfall. When I was younger I was in fact, a sore loser. The fact that the sore losers exist breaks the structure of the magic circle because they inherently take things away from the game to carry into the “outside” world.
Game Studies 
I think the point at the end you made was very true and a good way to put it in Consalvos terms. The entire paper goes along side (but in the other direction) as Zimmermans article. For Consalvo, a sore loser who intentionally breaks the rules does so at the expense of others enjoyment which does (at least for the effected party) in turn break the Circle, however my question would be, to Consalvos point of it all being situational and personal, does it break the Circle for the sore loser. If their aim is to break the game, then the cheating or breaking of the game becomes their game in which they have less boundaries than those who follow the rules. Safe spaces are important for development however it seems like they are always destroyed by the people who enter or even by those who create them. But if the idea of the Magic Circle is that it is a concept in which one can enter where there are no rules, no consequences, then maybe it exists, just more so as a concept, and not necessarily as something that is supposed to be used to define every game or every type of play.
LikeLike
I agree, I feel as though cheaters or sore losers are a kind of outlier that the magic circle doesn’t consider. They purposefully spoil the game for others and bring an exchange of feelings to the game, even if it is unintentional.
LikeLike