Consalvo’s Magic Circle Jerk*

In contrast to Zimmerman’s reading Consalvo takes the very stance that Zimmerman had aimed to humiliate. Consalvo creates the magic circle, almost in direct response to Zimmerman’s claims, as this highly structuralist ideology, created by some old guy from the 30’s that had very shallow perspective on what it meant to play and game. He implies that it is entirely out dated, especially from the stance of a sociologist, which Consalvo uses examples to back up, the biggest one through the paper being the Glider program for WoW. He suggests that while cheating may be taken by some as the worst thing one could do, for others it is simply a tool or way of getting past the dead content and getting to the good (end game) content. I think one point I found interesting was the idea of cheaters being more invested in the rules than anyone else so as to break them and I would agree with this. Now that doesn’t necessarily make it right but as Consalvo writes, its almost entirely situational and holds different meaning to everyone. He also states near the beginning of the paper that breaking the rules and being a cheater breaks the Magic Circle for anyone. If you asked me, I would think I agree with the entire article Consalvo has written, but only from the view of a sociologist. If we take the concept of the Magic Circle at face value, then it can always exist for some and almost always never exist for others. Its almost like communism, as an idea, sure it might be kinda cool, but in actual practice, its never turned out great. The Magic Circle is kind of the same. We would love to live in a world where we could find a space where there were no rules, no boundaries, just endless, consensual play and creativity, however, when it comes to reality, the Magic Circle will always be personal and based on perspective which Consalvo ultimately comes down to; it exists for some and not for others and it is always situational.