Time in Digital Games: A Comparative Map of Temporal Constructs

"Time in Digital Games: A Comparative Map of Temporal Constructs" presents a cartographic synthesis of 22 named temporal constructs from digital game studies, spanning 2003 to 2025, rather than a new master theory of game time. The authors situate these constructs across narratology, human-computer interaction, sociology, and industry practice, and arrange them along two axes: temporal control, running from player-controlled to system-controlled, and temporal scale, running from moment-level play through session, persistent, and lifestyle play. Clock time serves as a neutral origin point. The work is explicitly framed as a seed for a longitudinal, community-extensible resource that can reveal overlaps, gaps, and tensions without imposing a single top-down taxonomy.

The map's most salient finding is an imbalance in the conceptual landscape. Constructs describing system-controlled time, such as the many "X time" labels engineered through game design, are densely represented, while player-organised and affective temporal concepts are sparsely populated. Convergence appears in places, most notably between Tychsen and Hitchens (2009) and Benford and Giannachi (2008) on perceived time, suggesting a shared vocabulary emerging across research traditions. Placements are acknowledged as interpretive and guided by each author's stated scope, and multi-part models are plotted as separate units to preserve internal variation.

The authors conclude that time in play is layered and multidimensional: engineered through systems, negotiated through player practice, and embedded in broader routines and media ecologies. These perspectives are presented as complementary rather than competing. The matrix and accompanying web prototype are offered as a response to Jesper Juul's observation of "very little theory of time in games," with the expectation that the map will evolve as new constructs are identified. Stated limitations include a predominantly Anglophone sample and the non-objective nature of the placements, both of which the authors position as openings for future community contribution.