The field of historical game studies (HGS) has expanded significantly, yet it remains only loosely connected to historiography—the study of how history is constructed, interpreted, and contested. As a result, games are often labeled “historical” based on setting or visual authenticity rather than their engagement with historical inquiry. Within this discourse, historians have had limited presence, and key disciplinary methods remain underrepresented in both theoretical debates and game design practice. This paper seeks to open a dialogue between historiography and game design, arguing for the need for historians to participate not only as consultants but as co-creators and critical voices. It proposes a heuristic framework structured along two intersecting tensions: individuality–generalization (drawn from historiographical methods) and narratology–simulation (drawn from game studies). Using this framework, the paper presents a series of hypothetical pairings between canonical works of history (e.g., Bloch, Zemon Davis, Ginzburg) and popular narrative-driven or systems-oriented games (e.g., 80 Days, Telling Lies, Everything). These pairings explore how core dimensions of historical thinking—perspective; causality, continuity, and change; source interpretation; and contestability—might be modeled in games. The findings suggest that certain aspects of historical practice, such as navigating ambiguity or reconstructing meaning from fragmented evidence, can be productively adapted into game systems. However, the integration of broader historiographical frameworks into interactive media remains a challenge, often constrained by the risk of oversimplification or didacticism. Rather than offering a fixed typology, the paper proposes a flexible tool for mapping affinities between historical inquiry and game design, and invites further experimentation across disciplines.