There is No Magic Circle
Abstract
Games are created through the act of gameplay, which is contingent on player acts. However, to understand gameplay, we must also investigate contexts, justifications, and limitations. Cheating can be an excellent path into studying the gameplay situation, because it lays bare player’s frustrations and limitations. It points to ludic hopes and activities, and it causes us to question our values, our ethics. In comparison, the concept of the magic circle seems static and overly formalist. Structures may be necessary to begin gameplay, but we cannot stop at structures as a way of understanding the gameplay experience. Because of that, we cannot say that games are magic circles, where the ordinary rules of life do not apply. Of course they apply, but in addition to, in competition with, other rules and in relation to multiple contexts, across varying cultures, and into different groups, legal situations, and homes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The magic circle is a contested concept, leading some researchers to criticize it or deny its value as a concept.
“The magic circle is a contested concept, leading some researchers to criticize it or to deny its value altogether as a concept (Consalvo, 2009; cf. Juul, 2008).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Consalvo, 2009
Cites
Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games
Malaby, T. M. (2007) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/1555412007299434 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification"
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011) · Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments · doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 · Cited by 8,402 · see citing works
Nguyen, C. T. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190052089.001.0001 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2016) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1127246 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games
Arjoranta, J. (2018) · doi:10.31237/osf.io/uep74 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Consalvo, M.
- Affiliations
- Ohio University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Consalvo, Mia
- ORCID
- Consalvo, Mia
- Venue
- Games and Culture
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-08-20
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 408-417
- ISSN
- 1555-4120 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-4139
- OpenAlex
- W1979917218
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 35.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Games and Culture (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Physical education and sports games research
- Keywords
- magic circle, gameplay, cheating, game structure, player frustration, game ethics, rules of life, game context
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review