Consalvo argues that there is no magic circle due to the fact that it is impossible to enter a “new” game or a game in which you do not bring in prior knowledge. In reading Consalvo’s argument, I can say that I agree that there is no magic circle. I feel as though it can be theorized, however, as humans there are little interactions that we can have in which we would bring in no prior knowledge. Our brains are programmed from previous experiences; things that we have seen, heard, felt, etc. Therefore, regardless of what we do we are bound to bring in prior knowledge and experiences.
Consalvo also mentions that we cannot limit ourselves to only viewing actions as a means of understanding gameplay. When you simply view the actions of the game, we are ignoring the underlying depth, intention, and context of the game. This same concept can be seen through Bogost’s ideology with procedural rhetoric. The game has an underlying meaning through its mechanics, regardless of the intention that the game developers had. This makes it impossible to look at a game as just a game that has you do actions for the simple fact of it being a game.
Consalvo even mentions cheating as a means of determining that there is no magic circle. This makes her point even stronger to me because it is a perfect demonstration of how our outside knowledge and experiences are brought into the game. The concept of cheating is one that we know to be a foul act outside of the game world. Because the game has its’ own rules and capabilities, we understand from previous knowledge that cheating is in fact out of line and most become not accepting of it due to our previous emotions regarding cheating in the outside world.
Game Studies 
Nice post, Kiara. Another way to think about cheating and the magic circle is that the circle is supposed to be sacred–everyone who “enters” is consenting to the game experience, and the people who violate that circle are supposed to be “spoilsports” who ruin the game for everyone. But Consalvo notes that cheaters do not attempt to disrupt the game, they are in fact COUNTING on the other players maintaining the rules of the game so that the game doesn’t fall apart. If the circle collapsed, there would be no reason to cheat and it would, in fact, be counterproductive for the cheater. And so cheating shows the fuzzy edges of the circle, where the cheaters are violating it, but not destroying it.
But how can we think of this concept in terms of Reynolds and his writing about transactionism? Reynolds argues that we create the game by playing it (not very controversial), but that the game also makes us at the same time (trickier). We recognize that we are part of the game, but transactionism argues that the game is part of us. What would that mean for the concept of the circle as Consalvo defines it?
LikeLike
When thinking about this in terms of Reynolds, I then see how cheating can be seen as the game making us. Being that the game has its own rules, cheating can be considered a violation of that game’s world. That game’s world and other game worlds would then be considered a magic circle because cheating would be a direct violation of that particular world. However in this case, Reynolds theory seems to become a contradiction to Consalvo’s argument in this article. By that I mean that I mean that the magic circle would only exist if the game make us. With that being said, the argument that Reynolds poses would then make Consalvo’s concept of the magic circle incorrect as we share a transaction with the game in a give and take relationship, whereas Consalvo only suggests that we bring in prior knowledge making the magic circle non-existent.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you in reference to prior knowledge. I also agree that there is no magic circle either. we are programmed to a certain extent already when it comes down to a lot of different aspects in our lives. Not even intentionally, but we have people who raise us and teach us, and everybody does those things differently. But when taught something for so long, its engraved to a certain extent in our heads and that’s what we’re used to and that’s what we go with. This ties in with cheating and how we’ve always been taught that it was something bad. In this case this is the first time i’ve heard and can actually agree that cheating may be necessary to get to and understand the root of something deeper.
LikeLike
The magic circle is also interesting to me as it allows us to accept things in a virtual world that we could not accept in the real world in the same manner. In some regard, I can see how there is a magic circle due to this. Overall, I would still say that there isn’t one, it is just dependent upon your opinion and viewpoint of games and your interactions with them. I found it interesting how you mentioned that this is the first time that you have and can agree with cheating being necessary to get to and understand the root of something deeper. I have never thought about cheating in this manner, and I would have to say that I completely agree. Due to this situational instance, I can begin to see how cheating in every situation may allow you to explore something deeper. Not necessarily when you are the cheater, but just if you observe cheating practices. I feel that understanding the way in which people cheat, why they cheat, and how often they cheat will tell you a lot. Even outside of the game world.
LikeLike