by The Age
Initially, game and virtuality were completely separate from real life. We *enter* into a game environment (took out the console, connect to the TV, plug in/load the game) There is a clear distinct from the moment we switch on the "suspension of disbelief" and equally a clear sense of exit from the game.
As the need of immersion increases, the line between game and real life is blurring. First we have dancing mat games for fun (and weight lost), eye-toy where the player has to get up and physical, interact with the virtual character in the game.
Last year, BBC ran the augmented reality game of the mystery behind the death of fictional British pop star Jamie Kane. The controversy is described by Bryan in Infocult as:
To begin: after a year of preparation, the Beeb launched an alternate reality game called Jamie Kane, centred on the mysterious death of a pop star. ARGs usually prepare many web sites before game play begins, and typically without any signs that they are part of a game - this is called the "This is Not a Game" approach. For example, the BBC mentioned Kane as a real pop musician in its Radio1 news directory without mentioning or linking to the game (and nicely leveraging its own assets to boot).
We have reality games in the television such as the survivor or Big Brother. People live in a game for an extended period of time.
There are people living in virtual world (games) and died as a result. We have people buying virtual land with real life money, others make real life money by selling virtual objects in virtual worlds.
Of course, we also have the kind of street games as described in today's Age.
If we are introducing games into learning, we should also start to consider the implications.