The games industry has grown into one of the world’s most expansive entertainment mediums over the years—there’s no denying that. We have so many types of experiences, from massive open-world adventures to meticulously crafted indie games, and every year brings new progress in design and storytelling, not to mention tech. Gaming awards are an essential way to celebrate these achievements by recognizing the incredible work developers put into their projects and broadening awareness.
Yet, as our industry continues to evolve, so must our recognition of excellence. One area that could benefit from reconsideration is how awards classify different game genres, particularly strategy and simulation games. While they share some original DNA, they have evolved into two distinct categories with arguable sub-genres within each. Strategy games have splintered into real-time and turn-based, while simulations also include life simulations.
Despite their distinct gameplay philosophies, these two genres are very large on their own, and they’re often grouped under a single category in significant industry awards. While this may seem like a minor organizational decision, it inadvertently impacts how we recognize and reward developers’ efforts. As someone who has spent decades working on strategy games and even a few sims, I think it’s time we take a closer look at why separating these categories would lead to a fairer and more representative system of recognition for development excellence.
The Fundamental Differences Between Strategy and Simulation Games
On the surface, it might seem logical to group strategy and simulation games. Both often involve deep systems, agency, and mechanics that differentiate from others. But if we examine what defines each genre, it’s clear they provide vastly different player experiences, and it just doesn’t make much sense to group them anymore. Let me try to break it down further.
In most cases, strategy games challenge players to think critically, plan, and adapt to given conditions. Whether turn-based or real-time, these games demand foresight and tactical acumen that rewards players for making well-thought-out and clever choices.
Games like Crusader Kings III, Total War, and XCOM are just a few examples that take on this approach. They give players control over dynasties, factions, and elite squads and require them to manage resources and make strategic decisions in anticipation of their opponent’s moves. These titles often feature procedurally generated challenges, emergent gameplay, and in some cases, complex AI-driven opponents that force players to rethink their strategies on the fly. Strategy games also thrive on meaningful choices and consequences, where every decision can dynamically shape the course of the game.
Simulation games, on the other hand, often focus on creating authentic experiences that allow players to interact with environments in more detailed and realistic ways. Instead of emphasizing competition, many prioritize immersion and experimentation to master a given system. You also see a lot of simulation games that are physics-driven to enhance that feeling of realism and engagement in the overall experience.
Take Microsoft Flight Simulator, for example. The game’s appeal isn’t about strategic decision-making in the way Crusader Kings III is—it’s about the thrill of navigating a fully realized world, complete with real-time weather and detailed flight physics. Similarly, Kerbal Space Program allows players to explore the concept of space travel by designing and launching a spacecraft. Oxygen Not Included challenges players to manage a colony’s ecosystem and resources through detailed simulation mechanics.
These games excel at replicating real-world or hypothetical systems and allow players to engage in hands-on experimentation.
Why Grouping Strategy and Simulation Together Falls Short
I’m not perfect at highlighting every aspect of these genres – each has evolved a ton. However, the bottom line I’m trying to get to is that a singular category encapsulating strategy and simulation creates an apples-to-oranges comparison. Consider a scenario where a grand strategy game like Crusader Kings III competes against a Microsoft Flight Simulator. Both are complex and engaging in their own ways, but they excel far differently.
This creates several key problems. To name a few:
-
Inconsistent evaluation criteria—Strategy games are judged on things like balance, replayability, and player-driven tactical depth. In contrast, simulation games are usually assessed for their realism, immersion, and physics systems. Combining them forces judges to compare two vastly different experiences under the same criteria.
-
Reduced recognition and visibility for both genres—When two distinct types of games compete for a single award, the number of games that can be recognized is limited. Standout strategy games often go unrecognized in a year when an inventive simulation game wins, and vice versa.
-
Missed opportunities to highlight genre advancements—Strategy and Simulation games both push boundaries in their own unique ways. A new, unique diplomacy system in a strategy game is an entirely different innovation than a next-gen physics engine in a simulation game. Splitting the category allows for a more nuanced appreciation of the advancements in each genre.
The Broader Impact of Thoughtful Categorization
Award shows play a more significant role in shaping industry and consumer perceptions than we often acknowledge. Beyond celebrating achievements, they help define what genres mean and how they are valued within the broader games landscape. By distinguishing between strategy and simulation, gaming awards could give us numerous positive outcomes as developers, including:
-
More accurate recognition—Strategy and simulation games often have different goals, mechanics, and player expectations. Recognizing them separately helps ensure that each is celebrated for its unique strengths.
-
More games get the opportunity to be honored—With two separate categories, more games would naturally receive recognition, which gives developers across both genres a greater chance to highlight their work.
-
Greater visibility for funding opportunities—Award-winning games tend to attract investors and publisher support. If these genres can receive their own distinct recognition, it becomes easier for stakeholders to identify the standout projects within each. This can lead to more funding and partnerships for studios, as well as development support.
-
Encourages innovation within each space—When games compete in more targeted categories, it creates healthy competition within those genres. It pushes developers to innovate in ways that directly contribute to their specific field.
-
Sets a standard for industry-wide classification—Awards influence how games are discussed and categorized outside of ceremonies. This would help encourage better classification across media and storefronts, as well as the player discussions you see online.
It’s Time to Adapt Awards to Reflect Our Industry’s Growth
Updating award categories isn’t just about fairness. It’s about ensuring these awards remain relevant and reflect our industry’s progress. As game development diversifies, so does the need for our recognition systems to evolve alongside it.
Both genres have grown tremendously, and each offers experiences that are more immersive and complex than ever before. While they share overlapping mechanics and systems, they ultimately serve different creative goals. Recognizing these differences through distinct categories is a simple but meaningful change that would better honor the achievements of developers working in both fields.
The games industry thrives on innovation, and our awards should reflect that same spirit. Suppose we can refine how we categorize games. By doing so, we can ensure that every title is given the recognition it deserves – not just for the sake of fairness but for the benefit of developers, players, and the industry we all adore.
