Touchscreen travelers: Hands,bodies,agency,and mobile game players

Mobile gaming physicality

Although both the body’s place in space and time occupies the primary feature of mobile gaming corporeality, various aspects of mobile gaming invite identifiable physical characteristics, or at least the physical limitations, to the discussion at hand. Before mobile gaming bodies may traverse space and time, they demonstrate particular ways of physically engaging with the gaming technology, such as how to hold or interact with the device.

The players identified various body positions in which they are able to play mobile games, mentioning specific ways of sitting, standing, or prostrating that they felt was most comfortable for them when playing. The majority of the players described their body positions when playing mobile games as being the results of that day’s schedule. One player explained: ‘Common location would probably be the living room, sitting on the couch. Occasionally, I would play at work at my desk. The most common place would be living room and on the couch, in the common space’. Another player discussed playing mobile games sitting in a car, lying in bed, leaning against a wall at work, and slouching over the device when waiting at a doctor’s office. Without a specific question regarding the matter, every player mentioned some way in which mobile games allowed them the choice of how to position their bodies when playing games.

Mobile games not only provide liberty when choosing how to position the body to play the games, they allow each player to explore which physical positions best fits their needs. While PC or console games often produce a limited number of body positions – usually sitting – mobile games, and the phones and tablets on which they are played, let players interact with the games in any position as long as players are able to hold the device, control the game, and see the screen. But even with these limitations, players may express a great variety of ways of positioning their bodies for playing games, and this freedom opens other avenues of corporeal choice. In other words, the role of mobility in mobile gameplay has little to do with playing while moving but more to do with agency when choosing a variety of physical positions in various locations. These choices mimic the agency found in portable gaming such with the Nintendo 3DS or the Nintendo Switch. If playing a mobile game is comfortable when lying in bed, then playing mobile games becomes an option when relaxing right before going to sleep. If a player is able to easily control a mobile game when leaning against a wall, a short lull at work becomes an opportunity to play a game. In this way, the freedom of body positions interacts with other elements of gaming agency, such as the ability to choose where and when to play, to open additional avenues of play. Unlike portable games such as the Nintendo Switch, mobile phones tend to follow people to bed regardless of their intentions to play games or not, and therefore, a variety of body positions is more becoming of a mobile device than a portable gaming device (Dir et al., 2013; Lemola et al., 2015; White et al., 2010).

The manner in which players hold their game devices further personalizes the corporeal experience of playing mobile games. Players reported particular ways of holding their devices that best fit their play style and comfort. For instance, one player stated, ‘Most often, either iPad or phone, it’s holding it with one hand and using one finger on the other hand to click or touch or whatever’. Each player tended toward one specific way of holding their device, although players also described how they would alter how they held devices depending on their circumstances. One player mentioned a preferred method of holding the device followed by a caveat regarding how s/he played games while eating: ‘One hand, pinky on the bottom, control with my thumb. When I’m eating…I use my pinky’. Players also described the varying distances at which they would hold their devices from their faces, such as one player who described how it depended on the game:

If I had to really concentrate on it, I’ll hold it really close to my face, I’d say about here, about 6 inches or so from my face. If it is more of a relaxed game, I’ll have it down here and I’ll just be playing with my index finger with my other hand.

Related to how players hold their mobile devices, methods of input and game control provide a meaningful array of options for players. The design of a typical console controller portrays a single ideal for how players should input commands insofar as certain fingers belong to particular parts of the control and command a limited set of button. The touch screen design of mobile game devices increases the number of available methods of input (Trewin et al., 2013), and the players interviewed for this study described how both their personal preferences as well as each game’s design dictates the options for control. For instance, players reported that games which require only single taps could be held by one hand and tapped with the thumb, held by two hands and tapped with a thumb, and held in one hand while tapped with a finger from the other. To visually illustrate the point, the game Hungry Shark Evolution lets players tap, hold, and drag on nearly any part of the screen, and the location of the first tap becomes the reference point for movement: After tapping, if the player drags the finger to the right, the shark will move right. Because players may easily control the game regardless of how they hold the device or where they tap on the screen, they may choose what body, hand, and finger positions are the most accommodating to play the game in any particular circumstance. The game’s design is not the only factor dictating methods of control, and some players reported controlling the same game differently on different devices depending on the size, shape, and weight of the device.

Variability in methods of holding and controlling mobile gaming devices exemplifies corporeal agency at its most minute, almost to the point of being taken for granted. Video games have a long, yet somewhat consistent, history regarding how hands and arms should interact with game hardware, and from arcade cabinets to living room consoles the hardware has oftentimes dictated how players could hold devices. For instance, arcade cabinets have included mimetic controls such as steering wheels that dictate how the controller should be handled, and gaming consoles have traditionally utilized joysticks or gamepad controllers (Skalski et al., 2010; Williams, 2002). However, the merging of screen and controller in mobile gaming devices produces instances in which players have a greater liberty when holding devices. The abstract nature of touch screen phones and tablets gives game producers and players varying options for how to hold and interact with the devices. Some games require two hands to hold the device to manipulate the devices gyroscope while also touching the screen with thumbs. Others simply need single taps of a finger, and it could by any of the hand’s digits. Some games invite certain ways of holding devices through dense visual details requiring close examination. Regardless of the specific game, mobile games demonstrate a tradition of fitting the variability of modern, mobile life, letting players interact and hold their devices as they see fit in most circumstances.

One noteworthy caveat to corporeal agency in mobile game physicality is that increased freedom to choose body positions and methods of holding/controlling devices is that there appears to be a greater chance of unintended physical discomfort. Although traditional game controllers might undergo extensive ergonomic testing, and there exists some work examining the ergonomics of mobile interfaces (Cooley, 2004), mobile devices tend to allow for a large amount of variability in how they act as game machines and controllers. And the variability allowed when physically interacting with mobile devices presents opportunities for players to choose body and hand positions that may lead to discomfort. Most players described at least one way they have experienced physical discomfort when playing games, all of which relate directly to how they chose to play the games: eye strain from holding the device to close to their eyes for extended periods of time, neck strain from poor posture, and arm, wrist, and finger fatigue from holding the device up. It should go without saying, but unlike other forms of gaming wherein the screen sits on a desk, table, or is mounted on a wall, in mobile gaming the controller and the screen are the same thing. As such, mobile devices require players to constantly negotiate how they are looking at and controlling the device, sometimes favoring one at the expense of the other. These negotiations may invite certain body, arm, hand, and finger positions that may feel painful after playing for an extended period of time.

Mobile gaming temporality

Although discomfort may arise during extended play sessions, most the players tended to play mobile games at short intervals throughout their day, a phenomenon that demonstrates temporal agency for gaming bodies. When asked about the length of a typical play session, answers varied, but none were longer than an hour, and only in the most extreme cases would a player play longer than that. The majority reported a typical play session lasting 20 min or less. Some described their play sessions as lasting around 5 min. Shorter play sessions were common, however, but they depended on the circumstances. The shortest typical play sessions were 2–3 min, just enough time to play a single turn or complete one challenge.

Players also described play sessions lasting throughout the day but interrupted by various tasks like caring for children or working. The following statement is typical of the experiences described by the players:

I would say usually, most of the time, it’d be shorter increments of time and then a couple times a day. For me, very rarely would I dive into a game and spend two hours playing it. With the exception of this one car racing game I have, I really got into it. I would play it for one or two hours at a time.

In traditional gaming, such as on game consoles or on a computer, the time requirement for gaming tends to be more taxing. Quitting the game in the middle of play often punishes the player or results in a game over scenario. Mobile games, however, seem to reject typical temporal limitations in favor of catering to players sometimes sporadic schedules. Mobile gaming bodies demonstrate a level of temporal agency uncommon in other forms of gaming, and they are able to start, stop, pause, and restart games at a moment’s notice depending on the given circumstances. This agency results in players being able to eschew planning on any given amount of time for a play session; that is, they need not ask themselves if 5 min is enough time to play a particular mobile game. Instead, any amount of free time in their day may result in playing a mobile game inasmuch as they know they may stop the game at any moment to accommodate interruptions.

The temporal agency inherent in mobile gaming also invites play sessions at times when gaming would have otherwise been impossible or unexpected. In other words, this characteristic lets players choose to make the use of a period of time for one task as well as playing a game. Players reported choosing to play games during lunch breaks, while using the bathroom, or while performing a task at their jobs. In these instances, gaming is not a distraction while waiting, nor is it something to put away the moment something more pressing comes to players’ attention. The short, adjustable play sessions of mobile gaming, and the temporal agency that arises from this characteristic, invites players to make gaming an addition to an activity they are already performing. While high interruptability is a characteristic of casual games in general (Juul, 2010), mobile technology follows players wherever they go since they use their phones as a part of everyday life. Players need not choose between one activity and another, in these circumstances, but instead may include mobile gaming as a supplemental activity knowing that the games fit into a variety of temporal limitations. Players can play a single turn of a game while they are chewing their food, and then pause or stop the game to get another bite or sip their drink. Players are able to perform a duty at their job, play for a few moments on their game, and then promptly attend to the next task. Mobile gaming exhibits adaptability in how it allows players to play within various temporal contexts, and this adaptability lends itself to increased agency for players.

Turn-based gameplay is one example of mobile gaming’s temporal adaptability. A large number of the most popular mobile games require players to take turns when playing against other players, but players reported that time limits dictating when they have to take their turns are functionally nonexistent. Several players attempted to describe the time limitations of their turn-based games: ‘You would get people who would take a few days to take their turn’. ‘I know with Draw Something, it seemed indefinite’. ‘It’ll wait for you for; whenever it is your turn, you get, I believe, it’s three days to answer a question, if in three days you don’t answer the question you lose the game’. One player explained their surprise when, upon opening a game they had not played in over a year, they saw they had several hundred opportunities to finish games s/he had started with other players.

If short play sessions demonstrates mobile gaming bodies’ temporal agency in the short term, turn-based games suggest that temporal agency extends into the long term. Players not only may choose when and how long they play throughout their day, they may choose which day of the week, month, or year they wish to continue playing a game. And this phenomenon occurs with as little fanfare as a player who casually hit the home button on their phone to close a game at the end of a lunch break only to open the game again several days later to continue the game as if nothing happened. The freedom to start, continue, and end a play session at a moment’s notice suggests that mobile gaming bodies are more free than their console counterparts to dictate how time interacts with their gaming lifestyle, whether they play for a couple of hours after work, or they play for a few minutes while riding the train to the bank. They can quickly take their turn while waiting in a grocery store check-out line, and they can wait several days – or longer – to take their next turn when it becomes available. Some games take advantage of this temporal agency by building waiting mechanics into the games’ designs (Kokkonen, 2014), meaning that players are sometimes required to wait a particular amount of time before they are allowed to continue playing. Players may pay money to quicken the process, or they choose simply to wait, as every player interviewed for this study reported doing, because the sporadic, and sometimes long, periods of time were a normal part of their playing behaviors. While the players interviewed for this study chose to wait out these arbitrarily elongated time mechanics, others may choose to collapse the time it takes to keep playing a game by paying fees through monetary microtransactions. In this way, players are still allowed to choose how to interact with the temporal aspects of their mobile gaming habits.

One final temporal characteristic that deserves inclusion, if only because it was consistently mentioned among the majority of the interview participants, was the freedom players felt over how long a game should played before deleting it from their device. Traditional console or PC games tend to require significant time commitments on a variety of levels: time to save money to purchase a new game or wait for it to be on sale, time to download or install the game which may take several hours or longer, time to learn the game, and the time to complete any significant amount of the game’s content. Mobile game players reported what could be best described as a somewhat whimsical attitude toward downloading, playing, and deleting games. Players claimed to have heard about a game in a casual conversation, downloaded it in a matter of seconds during the conversation, and played the game as soon as they were free to do so. Once downloaded, it often took little time to learn how to play the game, giving players freedom over how and when to play the game. Once the game did not interest the players any longer, with little to no regard for the amount of the game completed, they reported promptly deleting the game and moving on to other games. Many of the common time requirements found in other game forms do not limit mobile game bodies, and players often demonstrate control over when, during what, and how long they play.

Mobile gaming spatiality

Players’ mobile gaming devices also serve a primary function as cell phones or tablet computers, and players tend to have the devices on their person or within close proximity throughout the day. The cell phone or tablet is in a purse, pocket, or bag while at home, work, or traveling throughout the day. Spatial agency puts the ‘mobile’ in mobile devices, and the characteristic offers opportunities for gaming experiences at any convenient location, including places not typically considered gaming spaces.

Players reported playing mobile games at various locations, but several behavioral patterns emerged from the responses. For instance, players consistently chose to play mobile games at their places of employment. Several players explained how they would play games at work as a way to fill gaps of time between their obligations (Hjorth and Richardson, 2011). One player stated:

When I’m in the car wash at work I just can’t help it. You get a quick three minutes or so, so you’re like, whatever, why not? When I’m on break at work.…A lot of work related stuff.

The spaces people inhabit often dictate, on several levels, who they are, what they do, and how they do it. This fact is especially true in an employment situation, one where businesses pay people to behave in particular ways. Gaming at work lets players resist some of the boundaries on their behavior by infiltrating their work space with mobile games. A space traditionally reserved for mental focus, such as a desk area in an office, transforms into a gaming space the moment a player places their device on the desk surface and opens a game. Even spaces meant for more physically demanding labor, such as at a car wash in the case of one of the interviewed players, may become gaming spaces. While at work, players subject their bodies to the rules of their employment, but they also resist those rules and insert their gaming identities into those places. A spare moment or boring task turns the workplace into an opportunity to play a game, and therefore players’ bodies become more than sites of labor. Incidentally, when asked about any negative repercussions for playing games at work, not a single player reported having any superiors or fellow coworkers speak to them regarding their gaming habits.

In a similar vein, players described their gaming behaviors during transit, such as when they were passengers in trains, airplanes, and cars. Sitting in transit is by no means an activity that requires the full attention of passengers, and a casual glance around a city bus, for example, would reveal various forms of media consumption such as reading or listening to music. However, these other media have had a history of being forms of mobile communication: reading a book or listening to portable audio is hardly novel. Games, on the other hand, have only recently entered public culture as a mobile phenomenon, and gaming bodies now appear in almost any form of transportation, private or otherwise. If understood as a consequence of technological advancement, mobile devices may operate for long periods of time without needing to reconnect to a power supply, and this, now common, feature of personal tech lets gaming bodies travel great distances during typical play sessions. When interviewed, players talked about playing during transit as a forgone conclusion, as if it was the most obvious place to play games. Their responses demonstrate a cultural transformation in which gaming bodies on the move are typical, even expected, in any location where people are traveling.

Although grounded gaming spaces still exist, mobile gaming bodies that traverse space, such as while in transit, suggests that bodies contextualize the spaces they inhabit. For instance, when several passengers playing mobile games occupy a city train, the train signifies the added purpose of ‘a place to play games’. Gaming bodies legitimize modes of transportation for gameplay simply through their presence. Of course, mobile gaming during transit is not necessarily a new phenomenon – video game companies have been producing mobile game hardware for years – but only now does the ubiquitous nature of gaming during transit seem to translate into consecrating these moving spaces as being appropriate for games.

Places of residence are another common location for mobile gaming, according to the interviewed players, but unlike traditional gaming which also takes place in homes, mobile games allow players to inhabit the entire residential space as gaming bodies. Players reported playing in every conceivable place in their homes: in living rooms, on couches, at desks, at kitchen tables, in the bedroom, and even in the bathroom. Although game consoles and computers tend to reside in living rooms or bedrooms, locked into place given their technological limitations, mobile game bodies and their devices roam from room to room depending on their preferences at the moment. Of course, the same could be said of portable games such as the Nintendo Switch, but unlike portable games players often carry their phones with them without the need to plan on using it as a game device. It is therefore more available around the home given its accessibility. Much like gaming at work, other activities may dictate where and how players participate in mobile games while at home. One player explained how the places s/he played at home depended on the morning and evening routine:

With my evening routine, usually after the kids go to bed, I’ll work on school. I’m sitting at my kind of makeshift desk right now. So I’ll play here, not very often will I play in bed. Sometimes in the morning, if we’re having a little bit of a lazy morning, [I’ll play in bed], because I usually work the later shift so I usually don’t go in until late morning, 11 o’clock or noon, usually. If we have a lazy morning, I might play a little bit in bed, but normally, [my daughter] and I will watch cartoons or something on the iPad. Probably mostly when I’m at home, I’ll play either at my desk or on the couch.

Homes present a trickier space to analyze regarding game bodies simply for the fact that traditional gaming forms already have inhabited homes for roughly 20 years. However, the difference between traditional gaming and mobile gaming in the home resides in the consistently changing locations of gameplay. For example, a player may play on the couch while their partner watches television, take their device with them while they use the bathroom, and then play for a few minutes in bed before retiring for the night. In this instance, the gaming body inhabited three different locations in the home, thus expanding the game space from the living room to the entire residence. According to players’ interview responses, the entire home is appropriate for playing games, and therefore mobile game bodies may occupy any given location in the home instead of limiting gameplay to the more traditional space of the living room.

Throughout players’ days, many moments present opportunities to play games, and the locations may vary drastically. One player’s response was typical for those interviewed regarding the seemingly random variety of spaces mobile gaming bodies may inhabit:

I used to play games a lot when I was in the bathroom. But, I found that I wasted a lot of time in the bathroom, so I stopped doing that. If I’m waiting at the doctor’s office or waiting for an appointment or something…Like a couple weeks ago I went to go get my oil changed for my car and they had some show on their TV that I wasn’t interested in so I pulled out my phone and started playing some games. So yeah, I guess if opportunity is there and there’s nothing else I would be doing, I probably pull out a game.