Mon 14 Jun 2004
I had recently posted a question regarding research into games and immersion (or lack thereof) to an academic mailing list. I was doing some thinking on how to approach the violence in games debate from a slightly different angle. In part, critics cite games as being so unique in that they are interactive forms of media and “immerse” the player. And, that this immersion is the true cause for concern.
Anyway, recent academic talks on games and play (in general, not just digital) have put forth the notion of a “magic circle”. That is, we knowingly step “inside” the circle when we are at play, immersing ourselves in the rules/norms of the game, etc. But, that in so doing, it is a knowing/concentual entry into the circle - that is, we don’t just suddenly enter this circle in a zombie-like state… This notion of the magic circle breaks some of the conventional wisdom coming from politicians and critics…
Long story short, Dr. Barry Atkins was one of the kind academics who replied. Barry is a professor of English at the Manchester Metropolitan University. He had written a book, titled “More than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form“, which covered many of these points. It isn�t a research report with masses of statistics, but it does try to state the obvious in a fairly straightforward way, touching on issues of (non) immersion in first-person shooters and on the chimera of “realism” across a range of titles (mainly Tomb Raider, Half-Life, SimCity and Close Combat). The point he returns to again and again is that games are only understandable as games - a material experience that involves physical manipulation of the interface and a fictional experience that demands an awareness of genre conventions that would seem to contradict the more simplistic understandings of immersion.
It is a fairly academic read, but interesting to witness such a thorough analysis of games as a fictional form. And, refreshing to have an academic with such deep first-hand knowledge of games (ie, he plays a lot of games - for research, of course)…
June 15th, 2004 at 11:35 am
Oh, and don’t forget, Barry’s a quite the (video game) cartoonist as well:
http://www.buzzcut.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01
June 15th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
My film professor would always discuss the “hermetically sealed bag” that each film exists in. Inside the bag is the entire universe of the film, which has its own characters, locations and “operating rules.” Even films set “in the real world” live in these same bubbles, and stretch the real world in interesting ways to create a unique experience.
One of the cardinal rules of film is to never break through the bag. If you make rules and then break them you pull the viewer out of the experience and remind them that they’re watching a film. Some films do this on purpose, like Annie Hall, where Woody Allen addresses the audience directly. But other films really do a number on the bag, twisting it in on itself, like The Matrix.
This has been so applicable to my experience as a game designer. While the challenge in film is only to communicate to the viewer what the universe is and how it operates, in a game we have to do that plus TEACH the player how he/she is allowed to affect the universe. Games that have odd or unclear rules (see recent entry on Jamie Fristrom�s blog: http://www.gamedevblog.com/2004/06/notes_on_thief_.html) break the player out of the bubble.
Sure, we�re always somewhat aware that we�re watching a film or playing a game. But even the most abstract games (Tetris) can suck you in such that you can pretend that you�re not.
The moral of the story: don�t burst the bubble.
June 19th, 2004 at 4:15 am
The notion of the “magic circle” is at least as old as the thirties (Homo Ludens), so I don’t hold out much hope that politicians are going to start caring about it now.
Also, the idea may not apply well to computer games: in traditional games, the players must deliberately sustain the game by observing its rules — they *must* be aware that “it’s just a game” in order to play it. Computer games, OTOH, are capable of enforcing their own rules: you don’t have to tell the player that Mario isn’t allowed to wrestle Donkey Kong, because it just isn’t possible within the game space. This perverse form of freedom (anything possible is permitted) may weaken the player’s awareness of the game’s artificiality.
Of course, the player must still consciously sustain the magic circle by limiting herself to the input/output provided — the game can’t force me not to sit on my monitor and lasso things with my mouse — so maybe the distinction is invalid.