Well, these definitions are sort of awkward. For instance, the definition of a strategy game: "A game based on complex brain work rather than reflexes, in which you usually compete directly against another human player or human-simulation AI opponent."
Strategy board games fit that description perfectly, but you've put them in a separate category because you think they "feel" different. For that matter, some card games fit your definition of strategy games. And if a strategy game usually but not always involves competition, then why aren't you calling puzzle games a type of strategy game? Puzzle games are what I'd naturally think of when told that a game requires "complex brain work"!
Why can't a game be both a simulation and a strategy game? It seems to me that Sim City encourages "complex brain work" at least as much as most of the RTS games I've played! And it attempts to model a realistic situation. (I do like how you said "realistic" rather than "real"- it answers my Evil Genius question.) So by your own definitions, it ought to be both! And when you start thinking along those lines, all the Sim games, all the Tycoon games, all the Civilization games are both simulations and strategy games.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Content and format are two separate things. So if you define one type of game by format, and another by content, then the two descriptors can overlap! For example, you can define the horror game by its content, but then its format can be action or adventure or even (theoretically) RPG! Similarly, "simulation" describes not the format of the game but the content- that it deals with a realistic subject matter. So even if you don't distinguish between "forms" and "genres" -which is admittedly just a personal quirk of mine- we still shouldn't be in disagreement that many simulation games -including German-style board games- are actually strategy games.
|
