My keynote presentation from the 2008 Philosophy of Computer Games conference can now be downloaded here: The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece.
This is my attempt at giving some nuance to recent discussions about the magic circle of games. Abstract:
In a common description, to play a game is to step inside a concrete or metaphorical magic circle where special rules apply. In video game studies, this description has received an inordinate amount of criticism which the paper argues has two primary sources: 1. a misreading of the basic concept of the magic circle and 2. a somewhat rushed application of traditional theoretical concerns onto games. The paper argues that games studies must move beyond conventional criticisms of binary distinctions and rather look at the details of how games are played. Finally, the paper proposes an alternative metaphor for game-playing, the puzzle piece.
***************************
Postscript
With The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece I had been hoping to create a paper as balanced as my old Games Telling Stories? paper, wherein I would elaborate the merits of pro and con arguments concerning the magic circle.
What I found was that in hindsight, the games vs. stories discussion was the easy one: The participants agree that there exists something called games, and that we can discuss whether or not these can be considered stories.
The discussion of the magic circle is much harder because the participants fundamentally disagree about the terms of the discussion: Proponents of the magic circle metaphor consider it interesting to examine to what extent a game session is or isn’t separate from something outside that game session. Critics of the magic circle, on the other hand, have objections to the question itself because they assume that the metaphor is fundamentally problematic for various historical and theoretical reasons that I mention in the paper.
In other words, the magic circle discussion has not happened so far. In the paper, I hope to have opened a tiny hole in the wall through which future conversations can take place.
Excellent paper! Great to see some focus on rule systems beyond those designed by the game designers, but which are nonetheless ‘in play’ during the game.
Now you just have to get some double-bind theory in there. (In its most crude form: “If you win this game of chess, I will kill you. If you lose, I’ll kill your children. You must play, and we don’t discuss the rules any further”).
BTW Jesper we are using your notes on juiciness in our second semester next week. Going to bring in Wilhelm Reich’s orgasm theory too.
Thanks!
I am thinking about the double-bind thing, perhaps one day.
Glad to be in good company!