Copier states in her research(Dutch), that online games can not simply be seen as a game with set boundaries. In her opinion these games allow its players to establish international social networks, exchange knowledge, develop language and management skills that they can also use outside the arena (or magic circle) of a game. Which leads her to conclude that a distinction between the virtual and the real should not be made. Let’s look at that a bit closer: what is a magic circle?
Katie Salen uses Huizinga’s concept of a magic circle in her book ‘The rules of play‘: “The magic circle of a game is the space within which a game takes place. Whereas more informal forms of play do not have a distinct boundary, the formalized nature of games makes the magic circle explicit. Within the magic circle, the game’s rules create a special set of meanings for the players of a game. These meanings guide the play of the game.” (p. 99) Huizinga does see this magic circle as permeable and a game as an open system. Meaning that players bring a great deal from the outside world into a game, which is what Salen calls ‘play’. The concept applies to the boundaries between a game and the outside world.
Huizinga never talks about a virtual and a real world. Of course not, because it didn’t exist at the time of his writings, but I think that is beyond the point. He just defined the world as being at play in a specific arena where rules determine your actions, and playing outside those boundaries. This understanding is very important.
Back to Copier. In the article she states, that while playing World of Warcraft and wanting to compete in specific events in that game, she set the date for those events in her ‘real life’ calendar. I suppose she means a paper one. Anyway, this, for her is proof that the boundaries between the virtual and the real are disappearing. Another example: she has discussed parts of her dissertation with other players in the game. Once again an example of why the virtual and the real are converging.
While that statement might be true, it has nothing to do with Huizinga’s concept of the magic circle I think. She’s merely using a social networking environment (an added function to the gaming environment of World of Warcraft) as a place to discuss her dissertation, but the discussion about that is not part of the game being played. When she’s writing down an appointment to start playing the game, she does so outside of the magic circle and that act is not part of the game.
Copier concludes that the study of games should not start from the game, but from the act of playing. I don’t think so. If we do that, we are probably missing out on very essential parts that define the ‘problems’ of gaming. Because it is the functioning of the game itself that draws people to them in the first place.
Image
In addition to this topic I’d like to refer to a quote of one of the teenagers we interviewed last week.
On Second Life:
“I like the idea of a virtual world where you can escape to. So what the hell is real money doing in a virtual world? That destroys the whole concept.”
i am more inclined to follow the reasoning of copier (thought i didn’t read the paper.) why do you conclude her reasoning might cause us ‘to miss out on very essential parts that define the ‘problems’ of gaming’? what are these essential parts?
i think the gaming is clouding the discussion here. (or at least the discussion that interests me.) if we drop the gaming from the reasoning it is even more interesting. what i think the central argument should be is that there is no point (anymore) in dividing the world into virtual and real. what is the difference in ‘value’ where you meet someone? it is different, but is it more or less?
if we drop the distinction we will learn much more about the differences. if we keep the distinction we will focus on relative valuation of the relationships (this relationship is better than that.) all the different relationships will stay. and they will change even more, over time.
I agree that ‘gaming’ is clouding the discussion. But that is exactly what Copier is doing. To her ‘gaming’ is virtual and everything else is real. And I simple don’t agree with that. A game played in real life is still a game, and constituted that way because of very specific rules. People who are at play, know they are playing a game. I don’t think that line is ever going to blur. I personally don’t believe in a time in which people don’t realize that they are playing a game anymore.
As children are more and more becoming addicted to games (such as World of Warcraft) there’s more to it, than a distinction between virtual and real. A game is designed in a very specific way, that makes you want to keep competing, that makes keep on going, just to reach that next level. As Charles Kriel, from our board of insipration, said, it’s like saying: “Yes honey, I’m coming, just this one thing. And before you know it it’s three hours later and your still playing.” Those are the essential parts I mean (however, I can not name what those parts are)