Well in say Super Mario, most of the sprites aren't simulated at all. They're sitting at fixed locations in the world. The viewpoint changes, but the sprites (tiles) stay where they are.
In this respect Noita is like Minecraft, in that each pixel (block) can change. However in Minecraft the state of each block in the world changes while its position is fixed. In Noita each 1x1 sprite (pixel) can move around on its own.
> in say Super Mario, most of the sprites aren't simulated at all
That's not a statement that I find a lot of meaning in. The sprites are not imitation sprites? The sprites are not fake? ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulated ) Do you use a different definition? What words would you use as synonyms of "simulated" here? "Animated" ? "Interactive" ? "run through the physics engine" ? it does seem to be a term of art here.
I think the key behind simulation is that it's dynamic. The way the coin box bounces up and down in Super Mario doesn't change in a dynamic way. Once triggered it goes through a predetermined motion.
This is unlike say the turtle shells which bounce around depending on what it hits. Its motion is dynamic and dictated by what the player did and the environment it's in.
The distinction between animation and simulation can be a bit fuzzy, but for me an animation is typically a predetermined motion while simulation is dynamic and reactive. However, especially in modern games, animation is blended with simulation to increase realism making this distinction less clear, see for example https://youtu.be/yTniZCOCY7o
So coming back to Noita, think of every 1x1 sprite in the game world as a Super Mario turtle. They can change state and motion in a dynamic and reactive way.
In this respect Noita is like Minecraft, in that each pixel (block) can change. However in Minecraft the state of each block in the world changes while its position is fixed. In Noita each 1x1 sprite (pixel) can move around on its own.