Erasing the Magic Circle

  • Gordon CallejaEmail author
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 7)


In striving to establish a theoretical framework for the academic study of games it is crucial that we, as game researchers, consider carefully the core concepts that pervade our work. Certain metaphors provide the very foundations upon which future research is to be built. If we are to move forward, we have to, as is the case with any developing field of study, take certain concepts as given. These are the tools of our trade. They allow us to progress without having to constantly try to re-invent the proverbial wheel. A great deal of work has recently gone into defining our object of study. Efforts at synthesising and refining previous game definitions undertaken by Juul (2005) and Salen and Zimmerman (2003) have been of great use in this respect. But the conceptual awareness I am advocating here delves deeper than definitions. It strikes at the assumptions that these definitions and other basic concepts that underlie our thinking about games take as given.


Virtual Environment Virtual World Digital Game Ordinary Life Game Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anchor, R. 1978. History and play: Johan Huizinga and his critics. History and Theory 17(1): 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blizzard Entertainment. 2004. World of warcraft. PC: Vivendi Universal.Google Scholar
  3. Bryce, J., and J. Rutter. 2006. Understanding digital games. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Caillois, R. 1962. Man, play and games. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  5. Calleja, G. 2007. Digital games as designed experience: Reframing the concept of immersion. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.Google Scholar
  6. Castronova, E. 2005. Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Copier, M. 2007. Beyond the magic circle: A network perspective on role-play in online games. Unpublished doctoral, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, G. 2009. Forget the magic circle (or towards a sociology of games). Paper presented at the Under the Mask 2. University of Bedfordshire.Google Scholar
  9. Dibbell, J. 2006. Play money: Or, how I quit my day job and made millions trading virtual loot. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  10. Digital Illusions CE. 2002. Battlefield 1942. PC: Digital Illusions CE.Google Scholar
  11. Dovey, J., and H.W. Kennedy. 2006. Game cultures: Computer games as new media. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. EA Sports. 2008. FIFA 2009. XBOX 360: EA Sports.Google Scholar
  13. Ehrmann, J. 1968. Homo Ludens revisited. Yale French Studies 41: 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fink, E. 1968. The oasis of happiness: Toward an ontology of play. Yale French Studies 41: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. 1986. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huizinga, J. 1954. The waning of the middle ages; a study of the forms of life, thought, and art in France and the Netherlands in the XIVth and XVth centuries. New York: Doubleday: Anchor.Google Scholar
  17. Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo ludens; A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  18. Huizinga, J., and J.H. Huizinga. 1936. In the shadow of tomorrow. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  19. Juul, J. 2005. Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Juul, J. 2008. The magic circle and the puzzle piece. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008, Potsdam.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Lammes, S. 2006. Spatial regimes of the digital playground. Paper presented at the Gaming Realities: A Challenge for Digital Culture, Athens.Google Scholar
  23. Liebe, M. 2008. There is no magic circle. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008, Potsdam University, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Linden Lab. 2003. Second life. PC: Linden Lab.Google Scholar
  25. Malaby, T. 2007. Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture 2(2): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MindArk. 2003. Project Entropia. PC: MindArk.Google Scholar
  27. Murray, J.H. 1998. Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Northrup, C. 2004. The qualities of a Tolkienian fairy story. Modern Fictional Studies 50(4).Google Scholar
  29. Origin Systems. 1997. Ultima Online. PC: Electronic Arts.Google Scholar
  30. Pargman, D., and P. Jakobsson. 2006. The magic is gone: A critical analysis of the gaming situation. Paper presented at the Gaming Realities: A Challenge for Digital Culture, Athens.Google Scholar
  31. Salen, K., and E. Zimmerman. 2003. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Suits, B.H. 1978. The grasshopper: Games, life, and Utopia. Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, T.L. 2006. Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Walsh, R. 2007. The rhetoric of fictionality: Narrative theory and the idea of fiction. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Yee, N. 2006. The labour of fun. Games and Culture 1(1): 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Computer Games ResearchIT-University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations