The field of historical game studies (HGS) has grown significantly, yet its connection to historiography—the study of how history is constructed and interpreted—remains limited. Games are often labeled “historical” based on setting or visual details rather than their engagement with historical inquiry. This paper argues for closer dialogue between historiography and game design, calling for established historians to contribute not as consultants but as co-creators. It introduces a heuristic framework built on two intersecting tensions: individuality–generalization (from historiography) and narratology–simulation (from game studies). Through this lens, the paper explores hypothetical pairings between canonical works of history (e.g., Bloch, Zemon Davis, Ginzburg) and popular games (e.g., 80 Days, Telling Lies, Everything). These pairings illustrate how core dimensions of historical thinking—perspective, causality, continuity and change, source interpretation, and contestability—can inform game design. The analysis suggests that elements of historical practice, such as handling ambiguity or reconstructing meaning from fragmentary evidence, can be adapted into interactive systems. Yet integrating broader historiographical frameworks into games remains difficult, often constrained by the risk of oversimplification or didacticism. Rather than proposing a fixed typology, the paper offers a flexible tool for mapping connections between historical inquiry and game design. It invites further experimentation at the intersection of these fields.