Game Success vs. Art Quality
As game artists, how significant is a product's commercial success when it comes to an artist's portfolio or even word of mouth? There are plenty of games that ship and are very successful even if the visuals suck, and those with amazing visuals but game-play worthy of an immediate bargain bin.
I would imagine that the work you produce and are able to show as part of your portfolio are far more important than how well the game was received. If I hear that someone worked on a well received game (let's say CoD: Modern Warfare 2) while another artist worked on something like Hello Kitty Island Adventure, my first thought is "Wow, I know MW2 is a bad ass game, the [artist] from that must be a bad ass as well".
Maybe Hello Kitty isn't the best example, but if the art quality between the successful game and the 'who the hell would buy something like this' game are neck-and-neck, does one artist have an advantage over another?
I would imagine that the work you produce and are able to show as part of your portfolio are far more important than how well the game was received. If I hear that someone worked on a well received game (let's say CoD: Modern Warfare 2) while another artist worked on something like Hello Kitty Island Adventure, my first thought is "Wow, I know MW2 is a bad ass game, the [artist] from that must be a bad ass as well".
Maybe Hello Kitty isn't the best example, but if the art quality between the successful game and the 'who the hell would buy something like this' game are neck-and-neck, does one artist have an advantage over another?
Replies
As someone on the outside looking in, sure, focus on the portfolio, but once you have actual street cred, the portfolio isn't as important, and for a reason.
I **totally** disagree.
I've known more than a few people who worked on awesome projects that were terrible. There are many, many reasons a person can work on a high profile game aside from being talented. I don't think that there is ever a reason for street cred to take precedence over portfolio. :P
There are also a lot of successful games that are made by companies that run anything but a tight ship, and that are full of unhappy employees that don't "fit". You'd be amazed at how much is solved by brute force and throwing money at a problem.
As to the original question, having worked on high profile games is hugely helpful, yes. Too much even, as some people with high profile titles, as mentioned, are not that good. They still get jobs though, cause their resume is perdy and the people that hire aren't always that clever. :P
That said, I would say that the portfolio is hugely important. The studio experience is important because it shows that the artist is able to do something other than make perdy art. (They can make art that is useable in a game.)
That's just my two cents though. :P
I think the real areas to look at are mechanics, replayability, fun factor, polish, and marketing. I personally hate marketing, and all that it stands for. But even I will admit it has become a necessary evil in modern economics. Proper marketing can make a game with abysmal art successful, while poor marketing can kill a game with fantastic art.
The truth of the matter is that each element of a title should look to improve itself as much as possible, while regularly listening to the other segments. The art team should focus on making good art, while listening to input from the tech team about anything that might affect the art. (texture density restraints, poly limits, etc...) The tech team should focus on producing good code, while listening to the art team to find out what tech they should prioritize. (different art styles can translate into different focus on coding development)
I've seen plenty of amazingly talented people who worked on less than stellar games. The inverse is also true. I've seen a good few people who worked on great games who couldn't measure up.
I think it helps to have worked on games that people have at least heard about, but in the end the #1 factor is how good your work is, with a mix of how much experience you have. For example, it's likely an employer will choose a candidate with more experience on less known titles, over somebody who worked on big-name titles as a junor.
I've been leaning heavily over to the design side of things this last year or so, while still keeping my position as a level artist/world artist.
I would argue that doing so it becomes increasingly important for my CV and my career that the games i work on are solid fun and well received.
However. If you are in a position where you are happy with focusing purely on the art side of development, creating props and textures etc. i think that your portfolio will take precedence over the title worked on.
With that said, i bet you $100 that it wont hurt to have worked for some high profile studios and some high profile games
If I can get a foot in the door, then I want to work on something scifi and edgy a mix of mcgee and blizinsky that puts artist like myself on a plane where both genres are recieving attention much like zelda players and chrono trigger players may have found new fun in later Final Fantasy games. Thats a bad example but you get it.
An artist with a great portfolio but with only HelloKittyFever as a shipped title has all the chances in the world to land a job because :
- he or she is free to make his personal folio kickass,
- and also, there are many ways to demonstrate one's technical AND artistical abilities even on the most casual game ever. Remember Kingdom Hearts? HelloKitty material, but man these game artists know what they are doing. There is tons of examples out there. The new Zelda DS games ; Little Big Planet ; even the 360 dashboard avatars. Very simple tech and specs, but executed very skillfully. Whoever is behind that is sure to be a good knowledgeable artist.
True, maybe a below average artist with somehow a AAA shipped title on his or her resume might have better contacts, hence a good chance to find an entry level job.
But it's irrelevant anyways for a simple reason : as an artist one has to try and reach for excellence and compare oneself to the best competitors - not to the average.
Good luck!!
Edit
WTH are you talking about haha. Are you saying that the Gametrailers comment posters are the ones in charge of hiring artists? How could that possibly influence the hiring process of anyone?
In my experience most HR people won't look at portfolios. They'll just scan the resumes. If you have a sucessful game on your resume then you've got a much better chance that you'll get your portfolio shown to the art director straight away. Especially if the sucessful game won awards and was well known.
@sprunghut - HR looks at everything - they HAVE to. They might not look at every single render on your site, but they certainly look at the work. How else can they judge your quality? Just because it said you worked on a AAA game doesn't mean you made anything other than a street light pole. I mean seriously now, it's all about the folio artwork. What you have worked on professionally doesn't really mean squat.
It's all about your folio art! If your folio is awesome but all you've shipped professionally is Army Men or Barbie Doll House, it won't matter.
[/rant]
They're HR people not artists - the ones I've met can't tell if a portfolio is any good. None of the studios I've worked at will do what you mention. The HR department will go to the art director with people who have good experience and ask if their work is any good.
Maybe in a smaller studio it happens differently but everywhere I've worked at this is the case.
in terms of interest in portfolios yea I am drawn to people who worked on awesome titles, mainly because those AAA titles tend to have awesome art in them and are in my mind as being cool. that comes down to personal preference though, which while trying to be objective certainly influences you. like when I see people around here mention they work here or there, I instantly see if they have a folio link because I like the titles that studio has put out.
Who hands you the portfolios? do you get every portfolio sent to your company? If that's what happens what does your head recruiter do?
If I am making an fps, of course I would rather hire a good artist who has worked on fps games before, rather than a good artist who made barbies play house.
Someone who has worked on the same type of game you are developing will have unique insights and relevant experience that should add to your teams collective knowledge.
If the game they worked on was hugely successful then they should understand the importance of good working practices and bring positive experience in that regard.
However, above all attitude and personality are the real decider.
I think he was saying.. all things being equal does the artists last project matter and of course, it does have an impact. The significance of it is determined by the studio hiring, how much they value relevant experience, team size, development time frame and numerous other factors I'm sure.
Pretty much.
Is it easier? Possibly.
Is it impossible? Not at all.
Both ways you need to demonstrate you can do the job. That's nothing new.
AS an amatuer I would hope my work experience would be important in the future, but in the same breath if its important ill never have a future because ive never worked on a title/ IM still trying to get in. I HAVE to rely on my portfolio and hope someone may hire me, like parasite said, because I show potential. As an aspiring game artist ive got a lot to learn, but I learn fast, Ive got a little way to go to become the kind of artists developers want to work for them I just need the chance. So yes I believe that a portfolio should outweigh work experience.
The defense rests.
I do wonder how many jobs I've missed out on because the best entry on my game resume is Pony Friends. Sure it looked pretty and might be the highest selling game ever released by an independent Australian studio, but I'm guessing the portfolio tends to get the "Ponies? In to the bin!" treatment quite a bit. Or my portfolio might just suck.
I'm surprised that so many people have varying opinions on the matter.
Continue
With that portfolio Ilya could probably get any hard surface job.
simple :P
The majority of titles in the top 10 are still using a mechanic that is basically akin to running around with a giant cone attached to your head, the tip of which interacts with your environment!
Most innovation is rewarded with cancellation, closure or redundancy. Basically it's the luck of the draw if you're on something that will sink or swim.
But rest in the knowledge that as a good artist, you'll always get a gig. Regardless of how well your titles do.
(I wouldn't worry about having your resume binned btw. I used to get my resumes filtered before they got to me, but that was because we got applications from all sort of nutters, and it would have been a complete waste of my time, that's what HR are for!!)
because 3d stuff always looks better when you slap on the sharpen filter like an old whores make-up.
OH NO U DIDN'T! ^^
ain't that the truth
There is a point where awesome starts to tip the scales in your favor even without experience. Don't be afraid to pile it on and apply. If you show you can do the work even without a shipped title it might be enough.
As for only going for AAA studio jobs and passing on "lower offers" I don't think its all that common for people to be hired right into AAA studios without working at a lesser studio first. Nothing really wrong with paying the bills while you continue to push yourself forward. Sometimes its not a giant leap forward but several small steps that gets you there. Some experience in an unrelated genre means you're probably going to need to keep working in your spare time to create the portfolio they want to see.
Its not a concern, just curious.
An excellent point. I will obey.