The reflective lens
The Six Worlds of Worth
When people disagree about a game, they are usually arguing from different worlds — different higher principles of what makes something worthwhile, each with its own experts, tests and evidence. Naming the worlds turns a vague clash of opinions into a negotiation you can actually run.
The Civic World
Higher principle: Civic duty
Worth comes from serving the common good above private interests. Designers here frame games as interventions in social systems — awareness, empathy, collective responsibility — rather than products. Ranked highest by the designers studied.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that will help society and are aligned with societal norms.
The Inspired World
Higher principle: Inspiration
Worth comes from originality, imagination and contributing what does not yet exist. Drives the tone and expressive form of games — and clashes with risk-averse stakeholders. Ranked second on average.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that are innovative and have potential.
The Industrial World
Higher principle: Efficiency & performance
Worth is functionality: efficiency, reliability, measurable performance. Serious games must be seen as grounded in valid education, training or behavioural theory to be credible. Ranked third.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that have an evidence-based approach and are proven to work.
The Market World
Higher principle: Competition & rivalry
Worth is saleability and market position. Ranked low by designers but unavoidable — “if we go out of business, then we're not going to be able to do any of the other things.” Market work often cross-subsidises civic work.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that make money.
The World of Fame
Higher principle: Public opinion
Worth is recognition and visibility. Present but muted in the Australian/NZ context studied — designers wanted “the product to be famous, not necessarily myself” — yet it subtly steers games toward polish and spectacle.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that are recognised and awarded.
The Domestic World
Higher principle: Tradition & hierarchy
Worth is position in a hierarchy, tradition and trusted relationships. Ranked lowest — most studios see themselves as challengers to established training — yet it appears quietly in familiar aesthetics and client conservatism.
Test of worthiness: Serious games that promote tradition and hierarchy.
Values in flux
Designers in the study ranked the worlds, on average: Civic first, Inspired second, Industrial third — with Market and Fame lower (but unavoidable) and Domestic last.
The rankings are not static. One developer compared project selection to choosing a character in Mario Kart: “different projects will have different measures of each thing”, and sometimes you “take a hit in the other area.” Profitable market projects fund civic ones; security enables values (“if you are feeling more vulnerable, you are not going to… put those values up front and centre”).
The recurring tensions
Six trade-offs came up again and again in the study. If your project feels stuck, it is probably one of these.
Realism ↔ Psychological safety
Faithful depictions of harm, pressure or failure can teach powerfully — and can shame, stress or traumatise. The learner-driver game cut realistic pedestrians for cardboard cut-outs; therapy games rejected frightening enemies.
Authenticity ↔ Accessibility
High-fidelity simulation and VR immersion collide with cost, motion sickness and low-spec devices. “If you wanted to make something accessible you can't just make it VR.”
Social impact ↔ Commercial survival
Studios accept misaligned work to stay afloat and cross-subsidise civic projects with market ones — doing profitable projects “so that we could do more Civic.”
Engagement ↔ Compliance & completion
Workplace clients value throughput and auditable completion; deep, playful learning takes time. A culture of compliance above all else makes development “less creative.”
Player agency ↔ Measurement validity
Clinical and assessment games must restrict choice and even hide scores to keep results comparable — the opposite of conventional “good game design.”
Fidelity ↔ Reach & cost
Every step up in visual or hardware fidelity narrows who can play. Designing for the “cheapest, cheapest phone” is a moral commitment as much as a technical one.
When worlds collide: three ways out
Drawing on valuation research (Vesty et al. 2018), a dispute between worlds typically resolves along one of three pathways:
1. Tighten the test
Agree the artefact is imperfect in practice, then adjust it to answer the opponent's concerns. In the study this looked like “disagree and commit”: test the contested design decision with real users and let the evidence adjudicate between competing value claims.
2. Compromise
One party accepts the artefact despite reservations, or the team agrees to try another model. Most serious games are, in one developer's words about play itself, “the theatre of permanent compromises.”
3. Suspend
No truce: each side treats its own tests as absolute, nothing allows compromise — and the project stalls or the game never eventuates. Recognising this state early is itself valuable.