Case Study 3: If it’s good for Blizzard, it’s good for me.

1. What I found really intriguing was their mention of creating details that add to the scene without drawing attention to them. A chief example is the collapsing brick wall they programmed, and how each brick had to be modeled and animated. Most viewers wouldn’t notice a detail like that, but without it, the scene would be missing something.

2. The amount of references and research they performed before even animating is definitely something I can take away from this. I need to get it in my head that the majority of my work will consist of finding references, not actually modeling.

3. I’m not sure how much the animating process will help my modeling work. I don’t know if, as a modeler, I will be involved in animating the figures for the game. I know it will be partly my job to make sure the model has enough detail that adequate animation is possible, but I don’t know if I will be doing actual animating.

One response to “Case Study 3: If it’s good for Blizzard, it’s good for me.

  1. I honestly didn’t think that they had modeled and animated the wall breaking apart because it looked like actual bricks falling apart. I can agree about the amount of references that are needed in order for modeling and especially texturing. Looking how the main villian was modeled it would seem to me that a modeler would have to make the figure in 3ds max user friendly in order to animate.

Leave a comment