Notgames Forum

Chris DeLeon pointed out this essay, which supports his own articles and my own attempts at figuring out the elusive distinctions between computer games and other games:

Michael Liebe, There is no Magic Circle: On the Difference between Computer Games and Traditional Games (PDF)

It's a very good read. Especially since it doesn't need to go as far as we do. It doesn't need to claim that videogames are a medium capable of other things than rigid rules-based games. It uses Klondike to illustrate how computer games are fundamentally different from other games, simply because there is no magic circle in the computer game. And there is no magic circle, because the rules of the game are imposed by the computer program and not voluntarily agreed upon by the players. As such, rules in computer games enable the player to do things (which is where notgames comes in... ), while the rules of other games restrict the things that a player can do.

I also enjoyed the attack on Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's all too influential book. In two ways: first by saying that they basically abuse the term "magic circle" and ignore everything else Huizinga and Callois talked about in the context of play, and then by pointing out that they don't distinguish between computer games and other games, while there are very good reasons to do so.

Good essay!

I am thinking though, does not most of our games have a magic circle? For instance The Path is something you have to put in certain things in order to get something out. With Amnesia, we did this explicit at the start, and I think one can actually quite easily step out side of the magic circle in Amnesia (as I have seen people doing, only trying to break systems, etc).

By not just trying to cram everything the game is about into the computer, one can realize everything cannot be accomplished with software and offload some of the work on the players.

That's just magic. Nothing to do with circles.

Lol, I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by that response, but I think it could be stated better.

Like Michaël said, the magic circle is a decision by the player to (voluntarily) agree to conform to the rules of the game system. The player can willfully enter and exit the magic circle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be referring to a suspension of disbelief in a fictional world. The magic circle - at least the way I see it (and as I read this, Huizinga seems to agree) - is like a game-specific form of suspension of disbelief. Believing in the "fictional world" of the game system is agreeing to be bound by its rules.

But with computer games, there is no agreement. The player can not decide that her avatar can now fly if that avatar was never programmed to do so. The player must conform to the game system in a computer game. Therefore, the magic circle does not exist, at least not in the way that any other medium that can use a games structure does.

That leaves you with just the magic part: the non-game suspension of disbelief in a fictional world.

That's kind of preaching to the choir here, but the academic value of this paper is that it attempts to prove in a very logical way that the computer game is fundamentally different from any other type of game. Rules of Play, then, was simply wrong in this regard to put so little emphasis on the medium in which a game is delivered.

Thanks for the clarification, God at Play. Nice.

There is a bit of magic circle. It is what prevents me from opening the developer console and cheating by enabling no-clip. It also makes me attribute value to winning or loosing, or breaking character (as Thomas alludes to).

Zimmerman recently wrote an article on Gamasutra (here) where he voices his frustration that his 'magic circle' usage had been taking on a bigger life. He even voices his exasperation at that every single student writes an attack on the magic circle even though it is never defended in the way of one binary magic circle.

I think there is a different reason as to why games have less human-enforced rules; they are usually systems in which the player fights/puzzles against the system; the player cannot subvert the system, because subversion is how he wins and failing to do so makes him 'loose' and resets the game. The player can never come to any agreement with the game, in that way. The system wins as long as it wants to be defeated; and the system looses when it asks the player to 'pretend to be Nathan Drake' as the player never before had to 'agree' anything with the game.

I agree the magic circle was plucked from Huizinga - I even feel that ever essay I read that quotes Huizinga does not strike the same tone as Huizinga did. A different era, perhaps, but certainly a different way of thinking about things.

That reminded me of this.
I guess it's a good sign that those damn ludologists feel threatened. But they're exaggerating. In a world where people get addicted to cell phone games, there's no need for rules-lovers to feel like they are losing their stranglehold. Sadly.

I guess they're so used to their decades of absolute control, that even the slightest bit of criticism makes them feel that the end is nigh. They just don't know how nice it is to lose control.

Check out the game BUTTON:

"The game’s defining characteristic is the “incompleteness” of its underlying system, in the sense that it is so obviously up to the players themselves to interpret and enforce the rules."

http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/wilson

And also this piece on Rules and enforcement:
http://killscreendaily.com/articles/brief-who-rules-rules/

Connected to this, and the emerging folk-game genre:

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/2/22/2814816/johann-sebastian-joust

I mailed Wilson to see if the talk zie gave at gdc would show up anywhere else and will report here.

Oh yeah, this guy gave a talk at GDC Europe and then some people played it on the roof. I couldn't remember the name of it. Folk game. Uhg. Only a journalist would come up with that. It's all fine and good if you actually like playing games with others. I don't.

I have no clue what this thread is about.

Were you there, on gdc?

I was! It was an interesting talk, as most of them were. It was a great experience and I found it very inspiring (the whole thing, not just that particular session). I wish I could go to all the game conferences.

What did you find inspiring in the talk, given that you seem to have no interest in the types of games talked about?

I've never been to a game conference myself, but remember the days when I used to stream things live, while being on some game forum at the same time and discussing what was happening with other nerds. Like for example when Shigeru Miyamoto came up on stage with a sword and shield, showing us the new "adult" zelda game after wind waker I think. Ah, these days I don't give a crap (actually expect to get more personal pleasure out of the mario games), but back then it was really cool. I remember people on the forum writing that they actually started crying during this reveal.

In that particular talk, nothing much really. It was an interesting viewpoint. Being exposed to new ideas is always a good thing, even if you have no direct use for them. I found the whole conference and the Notgames Fest generally inspiring.

I never had any particular love for Miyamoto's games. The only game of his I ever enjoyed enough to complete was Super Mario 64. Mainly because of the exploration aspect and it was the first strongly immersive virtual world I experienced.

Ah, an updated version with better controls would sit quite nicely. At first I was sceptic towards the trend to remake games and was irritated that some people I know thought that the best thing that happened like on last years gdc on something similar was hd versions of metal gear solid. Now I kind of get it; old technology sucks, breaks down, and has graphics and frame rates that hurt your eyes.