A lot of strategy games have only the player and his opponent. We rarely have bystanders, civilians, etc. It often is nothing more than an empty landscapes fought over by factions.

I think if a multiplayer strategy game had believable NPCs like civilians caught in the conflict, even if they are only reactionary and not part of the actual gameplay, would make the game feel less stagnant, would add a bit of randomness, and might help increase the impression that the stakes are high for the factions fighting one another, or put emphasis on the impact or power of their actions.

This could be done without actually shoehorning a gameplay mechanic related to the crowds, and instead just use them for the sake of the experience.

How would it look like to add the witnessing crowds to multiplayer strategy games?

I agree that the player needs to feel that what he does matters.

There are indeed many ways to give our games more “worth”, and what you suggest is one of them; establishing a closer link between the player and the character or world.

And it’s a good point that seeing a lot of characters in a game gives the impression that it is of higher budget, especially if rendered realistically.

What about the fact that Animated Crowd means Movement and by extent that Movement means Life (as an allegory).

Might be insects, dust spinning around, changing weather etc…
Isn’t it for the most part the gratification of playing in a world submitted by others strengths than the one we put into the controller or resulting immediately from our actions?

This sort of ethereal presence is also an overwhelming sensation.

In a video game Crowd means Power (console, computer) and tends to give the game carrying so much people at the same time an AAA game style:

- it’s the most justified reproducible element. People wouldn’t care seeing 100 or 1000 or 10000 people on the screen. Actually, the more the better.

- it’s one of the easiest way for a player to judge of the AAA-ness of a game as any character in a video game (crowd or main character) has to be as well-crafted as possible.

My contribution to the debate (despite XP, online community, the type of game etc…), my answer to “giving the impression that games are not a waste of time” is the cloth the main character wears:
Be distressed - make your character tramp look-alike, be happy - color your clothes, be exulted - make it wear something shiny etc…

In accordance with the game artists, clothing/appereances should be created fitting different states of mind the player could have.
From that you should give him/her the ability to choose, with all the respect due to the general atmosphere of the game.

It’s not that much work (less engineers more artists) and every game has his mechanics, fairly limited in the end.
Allow the player to be as much himself as possible the moment he puts his hands on the controller or an opportunity for him to re-interpret where he stands in the world you created (through the clothing) and cause he won’t deny himself or his vision, he won’t that easily deny your game.

Beautiful blog anyway.

P.S: Excuse my English; French is my Mother tongue. Thanks!