Jasede said:
The NWN camera was perfect, use that as a model.
No it wasn't. Such a versatile camera choice in a real time game leads most players to choose the most pragmatic angle/zoom for their party (usually a wide field of view, so as to get early warning of danger). The most pragmatic camera angle usually isn't the most aesthetically effective - so most players end up gaming the view to the detriment of any artistic experience.
For NWN it would have made more sense to stick with one view, since that way a designer can find an effective view, and tailor the level of challenge to that view. Leaving this decision to the player only makes any sense where there's no gameplay advantage to any view - so he can choose the one he likes on the basis of aesthetics and convenience.
For AoD, this could be an issue in exploration - since it's real time (right?), and I guess that some combats are initiated by proximity (??). Within combat, it might make sense to allow view switching. Outside combat, I'm not sure it does. First you have the NWN issue of creating a pragmatism/aesthetics conflict for the player. Second, you have the extra work of making sure the artwork is effective, defect free, and not misleading from any angle/zoom.
A more versatile camera is a reasonable option, but there are downsides.
With regard to an orthogonal perspective, I don't see the point. This isn't a squad based tactics game - it's not even party based. There's no gameplay utility in making sure the player has an objective overview on positional arrangements, or that he has a clear idea of lines of sight from many angles. More views mean more testing, and less opportunity to specialize the artwork.
On balance, I'd probably prefer no orthogonal view. It's more development work (art+testing) for no real gain that I can see. There's a strong argument for it in a UFO type game, but I don't see it here. [beyond the usual "It's an OPTION - you don't have to use it!!1!" nonsense]
