Veterans and Aspiring: What does your dream Game Art degree look like?
polycounter lvl 11
Hey everybody,
Since there's many industry veterans as well as currently studying artists here I was curious: If you could go back in time, what would your hypothetical optimal 4 year Game Art degree look like? What courses would you include? What skills would you want to have at the end of the first two years and at the end of the full 4 years? What kind of work would you want to do while studying?
Since there's many industry veterans as well as currently studying artists here I was curious: If you could go back in time, what would your hypothetical optimal 4 year Game Art degree look like? What courses would you include? What skills would you want to have at the end of the first two years and at the end of the full 4 years? What kind of work would you want to do while studying?
Replies
My degree from an average "3d school" would have less focus on modelling and texturing and more on technical aspects such as scripting languages and shader languages. As a requirement to graduate from this "program" you would have to have 2 games approved by apple on the appstore for mobile purchase for ipad / iphone. One, a 2d sprite based game and another 3d.
I wish I had a program with requirements like that
Depending on specialization I'd like to see non 3D classes like cinematography, sculpting (with clay, etc), photography, scripting, etc.
I think any uni should have a really strong library with a good selection of current books and DVDs as students would be expected to check them out. The classes would teach the most important principles, set the goals and give students direction, but also feedback. But the bulk of information would come from a textbook or DVDs. There's no way to cram an entire set of Gnomon DVDs into class, and if the class just consists of watching Gnomon DVDs then the class is useless because you don't need to pay tuition to watch DVDs.
Ideally you want to convey artistic skills (strongest focus), technical skills (after all a game is something technical: a software product) and some organizational skills. On top of that graduates should know the big picture and understand how their role fits into the game making process.
The 3D specific instruction I'd get, well, here.
Dealing with real world issues, how to use Perforce or Subversion to get your asset uploaded, how to map that Network drive with the texture library, how to share that folder with another artist, how to make sure you have DirectX installed and updated when your 3D app acts weird, isn't really part of CS. It's usually assumed you know that or you learn this in the "intro to computers" class right at the beginning. CS could be useful for a tech artist, but I really don't see how it fits into the education for e.g. a modeler, a sculptor using ZB/Mudbox. Maybe you're thinking of a IT management program?
Some math would be good, depending what you want to do - e.g. rigging, shader authoring. But working in a company with hundreds of artists I can tell you that the average artist, with the exception of a TA or animator, never has to do much math. Although teaching some general geometry and how it relates to art and artistic aspects would make sense. However the way I see it is that tools go into the direction of making art creation less technical, rather than more technical - as it should be in my opinion.
Right now I'm in a Game Design degree program that focuses on development. I haven't gotten much out of it other than a little C++ programming and a few classes in basic 3d that have led me to pursue sculpting in Zbrush and Game Art.
I personally think starting with traditional arts for the first two semesters and then focusing on very specific elements of digital arts for the second two would be the best way to go for a four year program. I would also want several technical classes as aleksdigital mentioned.
I've been wanting to leave my current program but since I'm half way through I'm tempted to stick it out and get the bachelors. Not really sure if its the best option but I've still got time.
My goal here is to understand what the devs are doing on their side of things so I can speak their language, write some of my own tools, and not be a frustration to them when I break theirs. Push comes to shove, in a very small studio I could wear a dev hat in an emergency and help do some basic code bug triage and bugfixing. Do you know how excited and helpful devs get when you can speak their language and don't come off like an ignoramus who likes pretty colors and just pushes the buttons on the tools and engine they worked so hard on? Some coding knowledge and a basic understanding of the philosophies and theory underlying code development is EXTREMELY useful in my experience... mostly from all the times I really wished I had it.
Also, have you ever met a really good artist who could also code pretty well who was ever hard up for work? :poly121:
This.
Agree 100%. Besides, since our fictional degree is 4 years, personally I think it's really important that there's at least 2-3 courses on the more technical side in the first 2 years so that if I really liked those courses, I can specialize in that area over the last two years, and even if I didn't have an affinity for the technical side, I can at least appreciate and understand the work and thought that goes into that side of things.
And so, I think, it goes with he rest as well: The first two years should serve as a broad introduction to the whole field; allow students to sample most specializations a bit and then in the last two years allow them to focus their efforts and specialize in what they enjoyed most in the previous years. That way, even if, say, you end up specializing in animation, you are able to talk to the modeler if the polyflow isn't working or ask the rigger to adjust the rig for a specialized purpose.
I also agree that classes that focus on the more traditional aspects are imperative, drawing, painting, sculpting, design. Even if some of them are only taught digitally, I think an important factor is that they're not a one time only class but rather have at least one of those more traditional forms per semester.
And then of course, as you mentioned, there's the whole leadership, taking/giving critique, building a network/portfolio, organization/time management aspect that is often overlooked.
That being said, the guys that are talking about learning code as well. I will say that when I went through school, the courses were actually pretty good and useful. Given that it was a newer program, not everything you learned (or didn't learn) was accurate to the industry, and there were certainly a lot of things that could be improved. But the courses and descriptions were what they should be, I think. They even had coding in there. But a MAJOR problem I saw was that most people didn't like code, or want to learn it. Finding artists that like programming are kind of rare, I think. You can force people to "learn" it all you want, but if they don't like it, they won't try and they wont actually learn. I watched most of my class do it, and the years after me.
I do think that as artists, scripting is certainly an asset. Which I think might be more what garbage was talking about. Not so much programming as scripting. Same thing, in a way, but totally different for artists. I think as artists, you need to see what you`re doing be useful, and be useful quickly. I know when I started learning scripting, I loved it almost instantly, but I was also the type that enjoyed the programming in school.
Either way, think tank training.... Great course, it seems.
In my experience, the course content is kinda irrelevant but that's just me. I think you learn most of your knowledge outside of your degree anyway and the ones who don't learn are usually the ones who don't have jobs at the end of it.
The difference between writing some Lua, UnrealScript, or something along those lines isn't really that much less complicated than cracking open Visual C#, stacking some headers and getting your hands dirty.
However, when I was first learning AS3, it took way longer for me to have that "holy crap" moment. Sure, the first few things you do are the hello world examples. and thats cool to see your stuff come up on screen. But in terms of actually doing something cool / useful, it took way longer. When I jumped into python, yes, I was following an Eat3d tutorial, but almost instantly I was doing stuff that made daily tasks faster and easier. And then the first first I wrote that was outside the tutorial, purely for my needs. Not only was it fast to create (it was pretty basic), but it was super useful and gave me this massive smile and the Hell ya! I did that! moment.
The reason I bring this all up is because Artists are the type that on average, hate programming, even though if you know it, you`re super useful to companies. So I think the best way to get them involved in it and show them that hey, its not as hard as you may think, is to get them into scripting where they can see it can be super useful for artists as well. It's not just about programming game play. It can actually help you with your workflow and daily activities.
I could be way wrong on this. This is purely based on my own personal experience learning it all, and what I've seen in other students way back when. Obviously it's a case to case basis, but the convo is about school, which is about creating a degree that would work for as many people as possible.
I appreciate the idea that people get weeded out and will be failed for not putting in the work / quality to pass. That is probably the number 1 quality I'd like to see adapted in most of these other courses - high attrition rates.
Dream program, art focused would be centered around the idea of building a strong foundation in the first two years, then in the later 2 years focus classes and assignments as actual game development, and assignments are assets to be built. In addition, reviews and accountability need to be present. I feel like it is crucial to do reviews and turn people away from the later years, to foster some healthy competition, as well as being honest with people who should not continue because their work is not up to par. I've seen a lot of graduating collegiate art students who honestly should have not made it past basic computer art, and I feel its because no one told them "this is not industry quality, you need to work harder."
[-] choice
Year 1
Goal to give a broad stroke overview to students to find areas of interest, learn and introduce software packages. Student:Teacher relationship should be very hands on.
- Intro Drawing
- Intro to Graphic Design
- Life Drawing I - II
[-] Intro Painting
[-] Intro Sculpting
[-] Programming I
- Game History
- Algebra
- Writing I
- Writing II
- intro to game development: covering all aspects from modeling, textures, animation, FX, design, concept
- intro to scripting: javascript, action script, Kismet, etc
[-] intro 2: concept development (concept art, prototype)
[-] intro 2: asset creation (env, character)
[-] intro 2: design (level building, env art, scripting)
[-] intro 2: gameplay (FX, UI, Tech Art)
[-] intro 2: animation (cinematic, cycles)
- YEAR 1 ART SHOW & PORTFOLIO REVIEW 1:1 (gate for year 2)
Year 2
Start focusing deeper into software usage, getting into the "meat." Start learning concepts of building things for a product, working within schedules, and accountability. Student:Teacher relationships still hands on, but allowing for a little more exploration and individual problem solving.
- Life Drawing III - IV
[-] Painting
[-] Sculpture
[-] Graphic Design
- Writing III
- Geometry/Trigonometry
- Critical Thinking/Problem Solving course
- Art History I
- Specialization Courses I [modelling, texturing, vfx, scripting/techart, shader writing, tech art-rigging, UI, animation]
- Specialization Courses II [modelling, texturing, vfx, scripting/techart, shader writing, tech art-rigging, UI, animation]
- YEAR 2 ART SHOW & PORTFOLIO REVIEW (gate for year 3-4)
Year 3
Full on focus on an area, or areas of expertise.
- Life Drawing V - VI
[-] Painting
[-] Sculpture
[-] Graphic Design
- Art History II
- Art History III
[-] Character Art I - II
[-] Conceptual Art I - II
[-] Environment Art I - II
[-] Texture Art I - II
[-] Visual Effects I - II
[-] Animation I - II
[-] UI I - II
[-] Technical Art, Vis I - II
[-] Technical Art, Animation I - II
- Free Art Exploration (self-driven within boundaries and restrictions, graded)
- YEAR 3 ART SHOW
Year 4
Same focus as previously, but with the intention of having the students be autonomous within their assignments, not requiring a lot of hands on attention from teachers, relying on themselves and classmates.
- Life Drawing VII - VIII
[-] Painting
[-] Sculpture
[-] Graphic Design
[-] Painting
[-] Sculpture
[-] Character Art III - IV
[-] Conceptual Art III - IV
[-] Environment Art III - IV
[-] Texture Art III - IV
[-] Visual Effects III - IV
[-] Animation III - IV
[-] UI III - IV
[-] Technical Art, Vis III - IV
[-] Technical Art, Animation III - IV
- Free Art Exploration (self-driven within boundaries and restrictions, graded)
- Professional Practices I - II
- Portfolio Development
- YEAR 4 ART SHOW
The first year was mainly an introduction to core elements, 2D,3D,animation and design, which was then supported by the written assignments which were targeted towards the industry and professionalism.
The second and third years were very self directed, such as writing your own briefs to then do as a project, so really let you explore and find things out for yourself and learn that way.
The best part of the course was the visiting lecturers such as Mitch Phillips, Michael Barclay and Liam Wong. Who showed so much enthusiasm and love for what they do which left a lasting impression to keep working and working to get to where you want to be!
You talking about FZD?
I've read grad reviews. It's a good school no doubt but apparently like many for-profit they'll accept almost everyone who can pay...what, 45-50K for 1 year (plus cost of living in not so cheap Singapore).
I think it's unfair to judge those who didn't finish the program 'cuz more than likely they're not equipped enough art training wise to undergo their program in the first place. Some have compared it to a SEAL boot camp for concept art. Waste of school money for them.
I'd recommend FZD for hardcore concept artist wannabes but for applicants who are starting from zero....you may want to check the reviews.
In part yes, I've read former / current students' thoughts on the program. Not dismissing those who were unable to finish, but more into the idea that they're not going to keep stragglers afloat just to keep forking over money. I've been with students who weren't cut out for it, and despite teachers wanting to fail them out - they would fight back and the school management would allow them to continue.
loaded question. Of course anyone who is GOOD is in demand. No argument here.
But let's just look at a real college - you deal with kids who often have no clue about the industry, and sometimes not even about art. Their future career lies, for most of them, in art. Most will go on to become artists, lead-artists, art directors, etc. A few of them might trail off to become tech artists or producers during their career. I think 4 years is a short time to make somebody production ready - and even now most colleges don't do that. And the question is not, what is useful, but what is the most useful you can cram into a 4 year curriculum? While scripting skills are important they're nowhere near the top of requirements when hiring junior artists. Better throw in some extra animation practice, life drawing or any form of art practice because we hire them for their art skills, not any extra coding ability.
The way I see it the effort spent on teaching somebody proper coding in just 4 years doesn't justify the result. Why? Because we hire people to make art, not to make their own tools!
If your company is somewhat organized artists don't have to speak to programmers all the time. You have producers, leads, tech-artists do this. You have fixed points of contact. You have established procedures and communication channels.
You have a TA team which can produce requested tools reliably, quickly and to standard. It's their job. The artist's job is to create art.
And no, a CS minor to me != being able to write a helper script. CS is a whole science. It is the science of computers. Most stuff being taught there has very little value to the average guy who sculpts in ZBrush. I don't think being able to write a sort algorithm makes your sculpt better. I totally think 1 or 2 scripting classes are enough. Unless you want to make a tech-artist education. But then the whole curriculum should look very different.
I do have a CS diploma, but right out of college, nobody cared. It's the folio, the folio and again, the folio. For breaking in you will in 90% of the cases be hired for your art skills and your art skills only to just turn that concept into something 3D and nothing else. Only years later it paid off. But the content of that degree would already fill 2 years of a 4 year program... I think if people want to learn how to program they'd get much more value out of separate CS education. Because just as someone said, you can teach yourself how to "script" quite easily. Real programming and knowing what you do is a different matter.
That's one perspective. The other is that coding, scripting etc are the most important, especially in this day where you can sell anything on the appStore (after approval) and you have kickstarter and similar crowdfunding sites. You can cut out the middleman of being hired by a studio all together and just sell-your-game without having to move up the rung as you will with a jr. attached to your job description.
That's why my dream game art degree would have you end up with publishing games on the app store that you coded. I think this is the modern way forward for those with real skill.
realy?
getting rich through the appstore?
making your own games doesnt teach you shit about working with people.
you will never get hired by a AAA-studio as an artist or programmer cause your game sold a million copies on the app-store.
and you wont get rich either, cause there are a million people like you publishing their games on the app-store.
so if you want to make AAA games in your life, moving up the ranks is the only way.
might just invest all the time you have into getting a better artist if you want to go there.
A lot of assumptions here. My answer to you is: If you don't try, you wont ever succeed.
And about this, i'd take selling a million copies on the app store over getting hired at any AAA company any day of the week.
As far as the specializations go, what do you think is the most effective way to structure them? Model it on the industry and go by things like Modeler, Rigger, Animator etc.? Where could those specializations combine for it to be most beneficial (for example, Modeler specialization has a lot of texture/concept or Animator has some rigging etc) ?
well you are here so thats half the battle id say, given its important to learn from and interact with your peers I would argue if I were to do education it would be more for that than instruction.
so yeah its more than possible to teach yourself, you have to be disciplined structured and focused, most likely sacrifices will be made (I find a chicken to the god of vertices helps on a full moon)a long while back I had a night security job where I made some great progress, earning a little above minimum wage 7pm till 7am on my own in a cabin for 12 hrs for about 6 months, didn't have a great laptop but didn't let that slow me down.
I took those 6 months as a blessing and attacked my weaknesses such as drawing which went from infantile to rather decent, just learned off of youtube, ctrl paint, that kind of thing, I thought up projects for my cg, watched videos on cg (despite I couldn't do much work on the laptop) and UDK, also burned through reading about a dozen books.
about a month after this job had ended and id settled back to my workflows, my work had significantly improved in ways I could of not even begun to suspect, I also thanks to the job had all new equipment to do CG on.
I keep a handwritten notebook on things i've learned and my workflows and personal tricks<- this is not a bad idea I find for anything you do that requires technical skill, and who knows maybe you will end up teaching a class some day or write a book, its uses of your own personal learning journal have a lot of potential.
-1st year focus on art foundation(colour, lighting, texture, composition etc) and the basics of 3d and 3d modelling in an industry standard app.
-2nd year focus on specialisation and have modules where students can try out some specializations(modelling, animation, texturing and ui etc) and end the year with a team project with some programmers so that they can understand what its like to be on an art team.
-3rd year focus on getting the students to choose a specialisation and big emphasis on skills the students need to get a job so that by the end of the year they have 3 or 4 good portfolio pieces. Perhaps another big project to use thier skills on by the end of the year.
3rd year could include a work placement but honestly I never found the university helped with work placements anyway. So you may as well get students to just look for work once uni is over. All 3 years students would ideally be using industry standard software, photoshop, 3dsmax/maya and zbrush as well as working with real engines eg unity3d and udk etc
my university experience was nothing like this, it was very poor quality.
Yeah I think model it on the industry. I would say the most important thing is to make sure you are not forced to take classes that are a waste of your time.
I also think the importance of having stuff in engine needs to be pushed more and make up a larger section of the makes for the assignment. From my experience when asked to present the model in engine most people ended up just sticking it in the default UDK map with default lights etc etc.
That all depends on your definition of a waste of time. If you mean classes that don't directly relate to your profession, then you're not getting an education, you're getting training. The intended goal of education is to provide a basis for the graduate to think critically and analytically. That's the difference between a aeronautic engineer and a pilot. The engineer knows why the plane works, the pilot only needs to know how to make it fly. Some aeronautics tech knowledge can be useful to a pilot, but ultimately unnecessary. Classes that are relevant to providing a person with tools that help analyze their world more effectively are not a waste of time. Education lifts the veil of ignorance and allows a person to see the world with more clarity.
Besides, more knowledge in things that are not related to art is useful since art imitates life. Everything is a source of creativity, even classes that seem like a "waste of time". Think of your knowledge like a pool. The bigger it is, the more you can draw from it without exhausting the supply. If it's small, you'll run out very fast or your work will not be varied enough; it will look very much the same every time. So, as to whether a class is a waste or not really depends on whether you want an education or training.
You make some very good points that I can't really disagree with. But I do think there needs to be more room for focus in games education rather than a more jack of all trades approach.
Honestly though I think the biggest problem is a good chunk of the students (yes even the ones that stick it right though the 3/4 years) just can't be bothered to put the work in and just never end up making themselves work until they get their skills where they should be. That's not really the fault of the University/College at the end of the day.
If you sell a million copies on the app-store then you've got a hit on your hands, going to a studio would be a step down after that. There's more to game development than AAA. There are plenty of AAA developers that secretly want to escape and make their own smaller games.
haha I feel that bro,
my last 3 month the teacher still didn't give us chance to make our own stuff.
we just make our own stuff during his class anyway. and got scolded asked to leave the class, I didnt care, I care more about my final work.
I mainly signed up for a game art degree to have an inspiring environment, because that was what i needed very badly that time.
Well you don't have to make the game by yourself... if you were on a course and part of the course was to make a released game on the appstore, then you should do it in a small team.
Working alongside one programmer can teach you a lot, especially if both the artist and the programmer were also designing.
I'd rather have learnt that at uni than how to use 3d software.
Also, if my game sold a million copies, I really couldn't care less whether a AAA studio wanted to hire me or not.
If you are lucky enough to even land a job in the games industry after graduating, I seriously doubt the debt you received was worth it based on the salary you can expect to receive. If you were going to be a doctor or something where you make a lot of money after graduating and you MUST have a degree then it makes sense, but I honestly dont think its economical to go to college for a gaming degree.
Also, if you are going to a school expecting that school to force you to become a good artist I think you are already setting yourself up for failure. While its true working with other artists might inspire you, make you work harder, and be good for networking so is polycount and its 100% free.
If you come from a wealthy family and money will never be an issue for you, then by all means college could be great for you. But I think people need to really think these things thru more and not just go to college by default (older generations will tell you, you should!).
Individual classes at a reasonable price might still be a good idea, however; I honestly believe that 4 year institution which provide degrees for jobs that do not require a degree, are a huge waste of time and money for the general population.
BTW, Im not trying to derail the thread here. It seemed like Spudnik was talking about a hypothetical degree and not actually starting his own school or anything. But this is my opinion at least, that you shouldnt be thinking which school/courses rather is school right for me?
[edit] Just in-case anyone is interested, all my debt was obtained with the last school to get my degree in "video games" (UAT). The schools I went to prior were much more reasonably priced and I had scholarships and worked to pay that off without any trouble.
I agree with this especially if you have to pay for those unwanted classes.
Having said that, a degree won't be a real degree unless those types of classes are included in your program. Universities follow accreditation standards so a common requirement in their bachelor programs include courses outside of the specific major (i.e. creative writing, rocks for jocks, etc.).
Compare Sheridan Colleges game design bachelor course list to something from a for-profit institution. http://www.sheridancollege.ca/programs-and-courses/full-time-programs/programs-a-z-index/bachelor-of-applied-arts-game-design.aspx#prog-info-courses
For-profits (Gnomon, VFS) usually just grant Diplomas or certificates of completion because they don't follow big school accreditation requirements (amongst other). But they're more focused. Maybe...no modelling 101 or sculpting 101. It's straight Zbrush or Maya instruction from Day one. And no creative writing requirements or such. If there are electives it would be more like storyboarding or concept art (when your concentration is 3d).
If I were to draft my ideal program for noobs I'd actually include playing major games released in recent years. Break them down asset and pipeline wise. Deconstruct how these elements were created at what standards and how it was added into a game. Every quarter students study a game from a different genre. And their main project is to re-create art that would fit such games using the major game engine editors.
Being a production artist I don't get much say in the art I make so I don't know how it's informing me.