Sweatshop

Today in class we had the option to play one of three games- Karma Tycoon, the McDonald's video game, and Sweatshop.  Developed by Channel Four and Littleloud, Sweatshop is in all appearances a very lighthearted game; however, it was designed to address the very real issues that many workers around the world deal with every day.  The developers also worked with experts on sweatshops to integrate as many of these realities as possible into the game, as well as spread numerous fact and figures throughout the game.

After playing about 10 levels or so into the game, I had had a chance to gain a understanding for the mechanics of the game.  Thinking about it now, I believe these mechanics play a huge role in helping the player understand at a deeper level the plight faced by sweatshop workers.  In other words, I believe the developers did an excellent job using the game mechanics to convey their point.  For example, the use of water coolers to restore your workers' energy- if your workers get dehydrated, they stop working, and can even die.  This connects the game to the reality of the sweatshop- for example, in one Mexican sweatshop, "workers are expected to meet a quota of 1000 pieces a day".  This means making more than one piece a minute, making the quota "so high that the worker are unable to have a drink or go to the toilet all day."

The game also employs a karma system, in which treating your workers right gains you karma, while ignoring or mistreating them loses you karma.  This is based on the huge amount of abuse workers face.  For example:
"In 2005 the building of the Spectrum/Shahriyar Sweater factory in Bangledesh collapsed killing 64 workers and injuring 80. These deaths were entirely preventable. The building collapsed as a result of factory owners violating building codes and health and safety regulations".


These two points are just a few of the examples that show the connection between the game mechanics and the realities of the sweatshop workers.


http://www.playsweatshop.com/sweatshop.html

Game Design Analysis: "Vigilante"

“Vigilante”

“Defending the planet, one target at a time”

Summary:

This game is meant to be very open, meant to be explored by the player, with various factions that you can interact with.  The main story of the game will revolve around a secret alliance of guardians, tasked with the protection of the world, and their struggles against the corrupt, militaristic coalition of governments that now rules the planet.  The core verbs that will define this game are exploration (due to the openness of the game environment), combating (referring to both the drive of the storyline and to the primary system of action (fighting)), and creation (as an item creation system will exist, both for single use items and for equipment).  The game will use a class (specialization) and leveling system, in which the character can be any number of classes and increases their abilities by devoting points towards certain ability trees.  It will fall under the adventure RPG genre, with a sub-genre of fantasy, is set in a medieval time period,  and will address a more adult audience (being rated M most likely). 

Theory Research:

Salen and Zimmerman

In one of our past collaborations, Rules of Play, we addressed various concepts, such as meaningful play, design, and systems, each of which have a large role to play in games and game design.  We devoted a chapter to each of these concepts, focusing on the nuances of each and defining the various parts.  

We recently had the opportunity to read over a proposed game by the name of  “Vigilante”, which is a open-world adventure RPG.  The story centered around a secret alliance of guardians, tasked with the protection of the world, and their struggles against the corrupt, militaristic coalition of governments that now rules the planet. There would be some of the key aspects of the game would be exploration, combat, and an item creation system.  The game uses a class system in which the player will choose a character with a preset list of possible abilities, which would then be unlocked by leveling up and spending skill points.  

To begin with, we found the open-world design for the game environment to be engaging.  The plan is for the player to be able to go anywhere and interact with almost anyone from nearly the beginning of the game.  The idea was to draw the player into the game-world as much as possible.  We found this to be a compelling idea because it engages the concept of the magic circle, creating a unique environment for the player to explore as they wish, with unique interactions with various NPCs and locations.  Put simply, “the magic circle of a game is where the game takes place”, and the environment of Vigilante draws in the player as it should. (pg. 95)

We also found the leveling system, while nothing new, to be fitting.  The ‘system’ of devoting points to unlock new skills limits the player at the beginning, but allows higher level players to use the most powerful abilities.  In this ‘open system’, which “has an exchange of some sort with its environment”,  the player levels up, gaining access to better abilities, and as such can better face the challenges posed by the environment.

We would warn the developers that the interactions that the player has with the game environment should always have some sort of immediate effect and some sort of effect on gameplay later in the game.  For example, if a player takes a item from a container, there should be the immediate effect the player gaining the weapon, but there should also be the later-game effect of the player not getting a better weapon from that chest.  This helps to create the sense of meaningful play, in that “the action a player takes not only has immediate significance in the game, but also affects the play experience at a later point in the game”. (pg. 35)

In regards to criticism, we would point out that game itself is one big system, and each of the individual parts, such as the leveling/class system, the game environment, and the creation system, need to fit together in such a way that they serve unique purposes, but also have a direct influence on each other. 

Games and Gameplay Research:

Similarities:

• Oblivion/ Fallout 3

I have always loved the open-world environment that Bethesda created in Oblivion and Fallout 3.  Being able to go where you wish and do what you want from nearly the beginning of the game is some much more fun to me than being told to go from point A to point B and only have a select few ways to get there, if any options at all. 

• World of Warcraft

I have recently picked up WOW through the trial account feature and one of the things that I have loved most about the game is the class system.  Choosing a class, and then being able to specialize in a particular talent tree, is fun for me because you get to focus on a particular type of skill tree and learn all of the nuances of that tree.  It allows for a unique play through with every branch and class.

• Fallout 3/ WOW

I enjoyed the item creation systems that existed within these games because the allow the player to gain unique items for their characters.  With Fallout 3, you had the unique weapons, such as the Rock-It Launcher and the deathclaw gauntlet.  With WOW, you can create gear that can be better than the gear available at that point in the game.

Differences:

• WOW

In regards to the race/class system, each race had access to only certain classes. However, in Vigilante the player will be able to play as any of the classes.  This way the player can experience the game in a unique way each time.  

Narrative Research:

The player’s experience of the story will be a large part in their total experience of the game.  While the openness of the world will allow for exploration and does not force the player to engage in the main story, the game world itself will change based on the player’s progression through the story.  

Stories that are similar- Assassin’s Creed, Rage

Assassin’s Creed- The Brotherhood and the Guardians both fight from the shadows to combat injustice.  However, the Brotherhood fights to keep those who do good in power at times.  In Vigilante, the entire government is corrupt.  Brotherhood members also hold positions of power in public life.

Rage- In Rage, the Authority is the dominant force in the Wasteland, with various bandit groups holding power at the local level. In Vigilante, the entire world is under the control of one central government.  

Aesthetic Research:

I envision this game with detailed, realistic graphics.  Not ‘cartoony’ but as real looking as possible.  Attention to detail, even with the background and things like water and shadows.  Based on the mood of the game, the color scheme will change.  Darker schemes for more somber moods (http://media29.onsugar.com/files/2011/09/36/0/3/36065/608b5d12c39a272e_Priest-movie-poster11.preview.jpg) and lighter schemes for the general play (http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/101/1013607/rage-20090813004135780.jpg).  

Graphics: (http://dottech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20091003_rage_01.jpg)

Realistic sounds as well.  The music would be neutral most of the time, changing based on the situation.

Standard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRee6NoN-c0&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5CE87E95F23D7938

Battle music:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-BVXRpIZbs

Creepy, set-your-nerves-on-end music:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMWzr6vhhDk

The game itself will take place in a urban landscape. Clothing will be set to period.

Portal Analysis Revision

Rules.  What are rules?  Are they just guidelines we operate and live by?  Are they a crucial part of our everyday lives?  Or are they unnecessary?  Do we have to have rules for everything?  The answer is: yes.  Rules are a crucial part of the way our society work and how we live day to day.  Rules set limits, and we follow those limits.  If we chose to ignore those limits, then there are consequences.  Such is life.

Rules are also a crucial part of many games.  Rules define the limitations of the game, what a player can and cannot do, and what the consequences are for breaking the rules, much like real life.  While the number of rules a game has can vary, as seen in the piadia-ludus spectrum, they play a crucial role in defining the player’s actions.  Ranging from something as simple as establishing the number of “lives” a player has to complex set of rules that define a player’s interactions with other characters and the environment, the rules of a game define it. 

I believe that the rules of Portal are one of its most defining features, having a direct influence on the level of engagement a player has with the game and how much fun the game can be.  From the very beginning of the game, the rules define the player’s actions.  After waking up, GLaDOS addresses the player for the first time, establishing a relationship that will last the entire game.  She gives the player a list of instructions and warnings about the upcoming test, then opens up the first portal of the game.  Right away you are taught that your character has a limited jumping ability.  Shortly thereafter, you are taught how to pick up a cube and place it on a “Heavy Duty Super Colliding Super Button”. By this point you know of six very simple rules:

1. My character can jump.
2. My character’s jumping ability is limited.
3. My character can pick up cubes.
4. These cubes can be used to hold down buttons.
5. My player can crouch.
6. The “Material Emancipation Grill” at the end of the level prevents me from taking anything from the level with me.

Simple rules, but ones that define the player’s engagement with the game from that point on.  

In the next Test Chamber (01), you am introduced to portals for the first time.  At this point you have no control over the portals, but in order to finish the test, you must interact with them.  You quickly learn that there are two colors of portals, orange and blue, and that these portals connect with each other. You learn that there can only be one of each portal color active at one time.  You also learn that you can carry cubes through the portals.  Again, simple rules, but ones that define the rest of your gameplay experience.  

In Test Chamber 02, you receive your first portal gun.  You learn that you can shoot the portal gun at the wall or the floor to create a portal.  However, you discover that you are limited to shooting blue portals, meaning that you are limited to how you interact with the environment around you.  You also discover that there are certain surfaces which you can create portals on, and certain ones which you cannot.

Based on the rules and story you have received so far, you can start to interact with the game environment more successfully.  You learn where to place your portals and how to use the objects within the game (cubes, buttons, pre-placed portals) in order to solve the puzzles.  You become more immersed in the game, due to your knowledge of the rules and the interaction between you and GLaDOS, and you are able to have more agency over the game environment.

As you progress, the relationship between you, as Chell, and GLaDOS continues to gain more depth.  GLaDOS is a constant companion, offering advice multiple times; however, her comments and actions, as well as the malfunctions that she seems to be having at various points, hint at a insincerity for the player’s wellbeing.  This evolving relationship, as well as the environment that it takes place in (the testing facility), immerse the player more fully into the storyline, following one of McMahan’s guidelines for immersion: “the user’s expectations of the game or environment must match the environment’s conventions fairly closely.” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 68-69)  

Once you reach Test Chamber 06, you are introduced to introduced to High Energy Pellets, which add another level to the puzzle-solving aspect of the game.  Now you have the rules for the pellets to consider:

1. The pellet comes out of the launcher.
2. The pellet needs to go into the catcher.
3. Activating the catcher with a pellet advances the test.
4. The pellet can kill you if it touches you.

230px-Energy_Pellet.png

128px-Combine_Ball_launcher.png

126px-Combine_Ball_catcher.png

Test Chamber 08 introduces Goo, which kills you if you fall in it.  This forces the player to think through their actions, for one wrong move can mean Game Over.  This creates a sort of bond between the avatar and the player, immersing the player further into the game.

300px-Portal_Test_Chamber_08.png

Test Chamber 10 introduces one of the most important concepts of the game, that of “Flinging”.  “Flinging” is based on physics in that you use increasing speed to launch yourself to higher or farther places than you could reach before.  As GLaDOS says “Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.” (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Portal_(game))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbh_3u-3xM

http://pad1.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/72/Undefined_8530.png/220px-Undefined_8530.png

Having made it to Test Chamber 11, you are trying to make your way to the portal gun upgrade.  Once you have it, you gain the ability to shoot orange portals in addition to blue portals, greatly expanding the possible ways for the player to solve puzzles.  This new piece of equipment, like every expansion, comes with some new rules, as well as the expansion of some others:

1. You can only have one blue portal and one orange portal open at any time.
2. If you have both portals open, and you shoot another one (like a blue one), it will replace the blue portal that previously existed.  The orange one will be unaffected until another orange portal is shot.
3. You cannot shoot one portal through another (say a blue portal through a orange one).

The expanded possibilities lead to further immersion into the game’s environment, as “the user’s actions have a non-trivial impact on the environment” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 69).

Part of the new possibilities that are opened up to the player with the ability to shoot orange portals is a more advanced version or slinging, which requires the player to use both types of portals instead of just one.  This forces the player to “grok” the rules, or display a complete understanding of the rules, at least in part.  This is especially important from Test Chamber 15 and on, where most the rules of the game have been established and the puzzles begin to drastically increase in difficult.  

As the player progresses through the test chambers, the comments made by GLaDOS become more sarcastic and snarky, and at some points shows an almost complete lack of concern for the player’s wellbeing.  She has almost been malfunctioning multiple times, and the player begins to wonder whether something is wrong with her.  By never really revealing that anything is wrong, but instead hinting at the possibility, the story immerses the player further (at the diegitic level).

The last hazard introduced in the game are Turrets, one of the deadliest obstacles encounter in the game.  Turrets come with their own set of rules, regarding how they operate and how they target you: 

1. Turrets project a easily visible laser beam directly in front of them at all times.
2. Turrets take a moment to draw their weapons.
3. Turrets can kill the player with a few seconds of continuous fire.
4. Turrets can be disintegrated with the Material Emancipation Grill. (MEG)
5. Other than the MEG, the only way to disable the turrets is by knocking them over.  This can be done multiple ways, including using cubes or other turrets to knock them over, picking them up and dropping them off a ledge, or shooting a portal beneath them.

The callousness shown by GLaDOS reaches its peak when the player clears through the last test chamber and GLaDOS maneuvers them into a pit of fire.  The nagging sense of something not being right with GLaDOS is finally confirmed, and the player must think quickly to avoid being burned alive.  Once the player escapes her trap, GLaDos panics and claims the trap was just part of testing, then telling the player to assume the “party escort submission position” so that a “party associate” can take her to her reward.  However, having just been nearly thrown into a pit of fire, the player ignores her and continues on.  

At this point, the player leaves the testing chambers behind, and progress through the maintenance sections.  The player is forced to demonstrate an understanding of the rules established in the test chambers, such as “flinging” and portalable and non-portalable surface, in order to continue forward.  As the player advances forward, GLaDOS continues to communicate with the player, and it becomes clear that GLaDOS is corrupt and probably killed everyone else in the facility.  Eventually the player reaches a large chamber where GLaDOS’s hardware hangs from the ceiling.  After a battle against time and GLaDOS herself, the player manages to finally destroy GLaDOS, being transported to the surface in the process.

The rules discussed so far play a crucial part in Portal, both in defining the player’s experience and the game world itself.  The limitations set by these rules are extremely important, sometimes directing the player through a level by defining what can be done, such as with the first portal gun, and at other times limiting the player’s choices and forcing them to think outside the box into order to solve the puzzles within each Test Chamber.  The relationship between the player (Chell) and GLaDOS also does a great deal to immerse the player into the game world.  However, despite the limitations defined by the rules, the player always has a sense of agency within the game, creating a greater sense of immersion.  As McMahon stated “immersion mean the player is caught up in the world of the game’s story, but it also refers to the player’s love of the game and the strategy that goes into it.” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 68).  As such, the rules of Portal limit the player, while engaging the player with the story, in such a way that it allows for a greater sense of immersion, agency within the game world, and a larger sense of enjoyment and fun.

Social interactions through MMORPGs

Online gaming is on the rise.  For many types of games (especially shooters), the success of the online aspect is just as important as the success of the single player.  Gamers want to be able to interact with their friends, whether it is to team up to kill zombies in Left for Dead, to facing off in a death match on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  As McGonigal puts it, "social network games make it both easier and more fun to maintain strong, active connections with the people we care about but who we don't see or speak to enough in our daily lives." (Reality is Broken, pg. 79-80)  This craving for increased social interaction, and the technology capable of supporting it, has lead to a boom period for online gaming.

Due to this vastly increased demand for online gaming and social interaction, the genre of MMORPGs, otherwise known as Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, has grown dramatically, with some of the larger, more popular ones like World of Warcraft and Runescape claiming millions of players each.  Within these games, players create their own character and embark on their quest, leveling up, questing, treasure hunting along the way.  However, one other major thing happens during their adventure: they make friends.  One of the major draw points for such games is that at any point in time you can team up with anyone on your server, to do anything from questing together, to treasure hunting, to simply exploring the game world of Azeroth.  Over time, players can develop huge social networks through various social skills.  As McGonigal states "Games build stronger social bonds and lead to more active social networks." (Reality is Broken, pg. 82)  This concept is expanded even further through guilds, in which groups of players team up together to accomplish various tasks, establishing a identity over time.

On the flipside, players are not required to be a part of these social interactions at all.  Many, many players chose to play the game by themselves, with little to no interaction with the other players occupying the world.  These players "enjoyed sharing the virtual environment, even if there was little to no direct interaction" with other players. (Reality is Broken, pg. 89)  For the players, the fact that they were just one of thousands of players on that server was enough of a multiplayer aspect.  I am one of these players; I feel no need to search out groups to go raiding with.  I am perfectly happy just exploring the world around me, doing quests as I find them and seeing the sights.

This expansive social network is seen as one of the biggest positive points of MMOs by critics, and is no doubt a defining feature of the genre.  But the social networking aspect that exists within the game has effects that goes beyond the confines of the game world.  Many of the same skills needed to build networks within the game, necessary for growing guilds and raiding dungeons, are applicable in real life. 

1.  Raids:  Most dungeon raids in WOW have 40 people involved.  Building a social network, then being able to use the lines of communication that have developed, is a crucial part of organizing a raid.  Setting a time for the raid, tracking down all of the players who will be a part of it, and informing them is not easy task.  Many of the same skills needed to organize a raid are directly transferable to real world applications such as social media.  

2.  Strategy:  Wow is a strategy-heavy game.  You as a player are more than welcome to wander the countryside dancing and goofing off, but most people will ignore you and move on to find people who know what they want and what they're doing.  This is true in the real world as well.  In the business world, if a company does not define an objective and build a strategy to help them reach their goals, they will quickly be left behind.  

3.  Guilds-  Guilds are a crucial part of the game, based on the concept of the more powerful your guild is, the more powerful you can become.  If you as a player put your effort into growing the guild and helping it to prosper, then you in return will reap the rewards from it.  This is true in real life as well.  Within any organization, the more effort you puts into a organization, the more you will benefit from it.  

In closing, the social networks that are built through the playing MMOs such as World of Warcraft have an effect beyond just the in-game perks.  The players themselves are developing the skills needed to have success in real life.

Blog Update #1

Games Blog Update #1: Josh Bycer’s Blog (Gamasutra) and CGP

First time back in a while, but I plan to be updating with more frequency from this point on.

The two blogs that I have been following this semester are one of the professional blogs on Gamasutra, written by Josh Bycer, and the blog on the Critical Gaming Project (CGP) site.  For the most part, I have enjoyed following these blogs, and I have found that I agree with many points raised by them and disagree with others.

Of the two blogs that I have followed, Josh Bycer has posted the most articles and has covered a range of ideas.  While he has critiqued individual games, his posts focus on things such as what makes horror games successful, replayability, and randomization.

In his post about horror games, Bycer cross-examines what makes the horror genre successful, and what fails to fulfill that legacy.  He uses games such as Amnesia, Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels, Alan Wake, F.E.A.R., and Dead Space, as well as concepts like the human fight-or-flight reflex to prove his points.  He argues five main points:

1. The player has to fight back at all times.
2. enemies have to fight at a different level than the player
3. linearity should be avoided,
4. if the player evolves, so must the enemies
5. give the player downtime.  

These “guidelines” that Bycer lays out could in fact drastically improve the horror genre.  Random encounters, enemies with increasing difficultly, and facing the choice of fight-or-flight would create a greater sense of engagement for the player, mainly due to the fact that they would be facing a greater challenge.  They would have no way to predict when they would encounter an enemy, what that enemy could be, and if they should fight or run.

In his two posts about replayability and randomization, Bycer critiques these two aspects of gameplay, looking at how they apply to games such as Din’s Curse, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alpha Protocol, and World of Warcraft.  

When talking about replayability, he references an earlier post he had made in which he lays out five tenets that he believes guides replayability:

1. Escalation
2. Competition
3. Cooperation
4. The Experience
5. Randomization

He later edits this to include customization as well. Then in the primary article he chooses to focus on the difference between and impact of customization and personalization.  He defines customization as “Giving players gameplay choices and allowing them control over what to use” and personalization as “Allowing players to modify choices by the designer to suit their preferences and stand out from other players.”  He states that personalization is a step from customization and that the difference between the two is crucial to determining the replayability of a game.

He expands his thoughts on randomization in another post, using games such as X-Com and Diablo 2 to back up his points.  He defines three levels of randomization: Low, Medium, and High.  Low randomization mainly has to do with the placement of equipment and how often you can find them.  Medium randomization expands this to include the placement of enemies, as well as the types of enemies faced.  Finally, there is high randomization, which includes everything up to this point, as well as randomization of the world environment itself.  He then addresses the pros and cons of randomizations.

Pros: greater replayability and a possible difficulty modifier.

Cons: The level can be stacked against the player (i.e. enemies, items, the map itself), the quality of the game environment.

He then finishes off by stating that “A well designed randomization system can be the cherry on top for your game design, giving players added value. However, like all good mechanics, it must be properly designed and implemented.”  

The points raised in these articles could definitely be used to improve the replayability of games.  I would love to be able to play a game like Final Fantasy and have a completely customizable character and randomized gameworld. However, the way that the story defines the characters and the world limit this.  Randomization can add a great deal to replayability, but only if the limitations of the story and character development allow for it.

Onto the Critical Gaming Project, which addresses agonistic (competitive) play and choice in games.

In the first post, the idea of agonistic play is the primary focus.  Referencing a recent Canadian study which concluded that competition, rather than violent content, raised aggression in players, the post talks about how attention is shifting from the representational content of a game to its primary form of play.  As the post states “The new potential focus of popular moral concern is competitive multiplayer games, or games that facilitate Agon as the primary form of play”, referencing Caillois’ Man, Play and Games (1958).  It then laments that agon is a form reinforced in many different aspects of daily life, such as economics, politics, and popular media.

The second post focuses on the effect choice has on gameplay.  The post notes how, for many years, players have been craving more choice within their games; however, the author feels that having more choice does not necessarily guarantee a more meaningful or complete experience.  They argue that games that pursue a morals system often suffer from poor design or ‘overchoice’, and argue that, in this day and age, limitation would be the radical choice: having fewer choices with more in-depth consequences.

The argument raised in this post raises some good points.  Too much choice can be a bad thing, sometimes resulting in buggy programming, lack of direction, etc.  However, too little choice does have its drawbacks.  Replayability is greatly increased when there is a greater number of options to choose from.  Too little choice can also result in linearity, which is extremely frustrating at times.  In order for open-choice games to flourish, a balance must be found between too many choices and too little choice.  If this can be successfully achieved, it would vastly increase the replayability of many games.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110922/8496/The_Interplay_of_Fear_and_Power_In_Horror_Games_Or_How_To_Make_Manly_Men_Cry.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110907/8385/Reexamining_Replayability.php

http://chronicgamedesigner.blogspot.com/2009/06/tenets-of-replayability.html

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110912/8424/Random_Thoughts_on_Randomization_in_Game_Design.php

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/09/agonism-and-agression/#more-1707

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/09/gaming-in-the-era-of-overchoice/#more-1744

Pankinecticon?

After reading changed's article "Much Ado About No Controller, Or, Further Meditations on Immersion/Interactivity",  I found my attention grabbed by one of the points he had made about the possibility of a "pankinecticon". Based on the concept of a panopticon, which is a closed-circuit network that allows supervisors to view employees or citizens without their realization, changed adapted the concept to include devices such as the Kinect, a "controller-free" technology recently released for the Xbox 360.  He makes a joke about how there would soon be amazing news on how some major criminal or would-be terrorist was nabbed thanks to the Kinect and then comments on how people have paid to have what amount to surveillance technology in their homes, all so that they can interact in a new way with their games.


I find the concept to be both extremely intriguing and disturbing.  On one hand, technology such as the Kinect could be a huge help to law enforcement agents.  Using free surveillance provided by consumers to track the movement of dangerous targets, they could gain access to potentially case-making evidence.  The technology of Kinect could also help combat crimes such as domestic violence and drug-trafficing (ok, maybe that's a stretch, but still, the possibility is intriguing).  


However, the pros of this technology in the home and readily available to the government comes at a huge cost to the personal privacy of the Kinect users.  Imagine that, at any moment in time, a government agent could be watching your every move, looking for evidence that a law has been broken.  It's not hard to envision the uproar that this would cause.  The use of such technology for crime fighting, or for anything other than its intended purpose, would have to be heavily regulated, protected by laws just like any other form of personal privacy.


The idea of a gaming accessory being used for something like crime fighting, while not necessarily a new concept, shatters the concept of the magic circle.  The Kinect is meant to allow the player to immerse themselves even fuller into the game that they are playing by removing the controller and letting the player controller the actions onscreen with their bodies; instead, it can be used for real world applications such as security and law enforcement.  While the Kinect's intended use does coexist extremely well with the concept of the magic circle, the possibility of its technology being used for other things make it hard for the magic circle to truly coexist with a technology like the Kinect.