The amount of time leads have to put into actually interviewing and dealing with people who ARE good enough to hire is quite a lot. They don't have time to review peoples art test and give feedback. Its unfortunately unrealistic.
I have been given critiques on Art Tests before good and bad, and even though the critiques were not super long essays they were enough to help me learn from my mistakes.
Typing a sentence to a person who spent a week or two working on an art test while also working a full-time job doesn't take too long and not only is appreciated it shows that the company actually cares about the time investment that that person has put into that asset.
Also i can see how this would be an issue if you giving out Art Tests to everyone that applies which in itself is a terrible thing to do and i know several larger companies that do this.
My stance is Only give out Art Test's to applicants that you are interested in hiring from Experience/portfolio work. and give feedback to those applicants if they fail or pass.
It takes 5 minutes to write quick feedback for an art test and send it off to HR to forward to the applicant. and if your hiring process isn't a gong show you should probably have time during the day to do that.
While nepotism is obviously a bad thing, I do encourage people to network. Especially if you're naturally introverted, because it won't happen for you as effortlessly in that case. Who you know WILL help you in this industry.
Gauging based on portfolio alone has it's own pittfalls, especially for entry-level artists, as they have no production work in their portfolio where you know there was a deadline behind the work. You have no way of truly knowing how long it took the artist to make those assets. All the negatives of art tests aside, they do have the benefit of leveling the playing field. Every applicant is making the exact same asset, so there is less room for subjectivity when reviewing the work because there is zero disparity in the subject matter. If you're working full time while taking the test, I wouldn't hesitate to tell them so and ask for more time than they wold give someone who is ostensibly working on the test all day and night.
Don't get me wrong, I think art tests suck too, but I can also sort of understand why they exist.
I can't say I totally disagree. those reasons make some sense.
But why bother with a folio when it all comes down to the test anyway?
On the other hand, I don't think a single asset says much. When people do an art test next to work, the deadline means nothing. One guy can invest 40 hours because he works a half-day job, the other can spend 10. One guy can still get lucky with that one asset, because he loves the subject matter, the other don't. And if you make a game, is that asset really representative of the all your characters / props / environments, or is it just a random pieces? Some artists have access to software others have not. So you should also prescribe them to use software your studio uses, to best replicate the setting.
I think we're fooling ourselves into believing the field is level because "everyone works on the same asset", but reality is more complex than that. Unless you put people on site in a controlled environment, the art test isn't a strong tool for comparison between different applicants.
On the other hand, I don't think a single asset says much. When people do an art test next to work, the deadline means nothing. One guy can invest 40 hours because he works a half-day job, the other can spend 10. One guy can still get lucky with that one asset, because he loves the subject matter, the other don't. And if you make a game, is that asset really representative of the all your characters / props / environments, or is it just a random pieces? Some artists have access to software others have not. So you should also prescribe them to use software your studio uses, to best replicate the setting.
I've taken an art test where I had an hour limit, as well as day limit; something like twenty hours over four days (including a weekend). Now obviously someone could lie, but if you assume candidates are honest it evens the playing field.
But why bother with a folio when it all comes down to the test anyway?
On the other hand, I don't think a single asset says much. When people do an art test next to work, the deadline means nothing. One guy can invest 40 hours because he works a half-day job, the other can spend 10. One guy can still get lucky with that one asset, because he loves the subject matter, the other don't.
The portfolio is a representation of your work, and a decent one will at the very least get you past the HR person who is weeding through all the shit (also reason to not have a shitty CV) and further up the line to someone who knows what they are looking at.
For the getting lucky part, most tests are going to reflect the type of work the studio or the project they are looking to hire a candidate for, so if someone who is less talented does better on a test because they like the subject matter, so be it, it is useful information.
Sure some places give out art tests willy nilly, but I still think they are useful gauges even with their flaws.
While nepotism is obviously a bad thing, I do encourage people to network. Especially if you're naturally introverted, because it won't happen for you as effortlessly in that case. Who you know WILL help you in this industry.
Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy.
I agree with Kwramm. In particular, I feel that many companies dont do art tests properly. In some cases it just feels like they dont value applicants time (I am not saying it's extremely common, just that it happens more than it should). I dont think its ok for a company to give an art test to anyone with a pulse without any kind of initial filtering. Ive seen this a few times, Ive seen a person with no 3D ability get an art test at a large gaming company (they didnt even look at his portfolio because he did not have one). That just doesnt sound right.
Not getting a response after spending valuable time on a test is just not cool. It shows a lack of care, and really reflects poorly on the company for me.
Granted, I find an art test reasonable if a particular applicant that the company is interested in has a portfolio that doesnt fully demonstrate the required qualifications but potentially could. Probably the most annoying thing Ive ran into is an art test with an NDA. Something about spending 2-3 weeks on a project that I will never be able to show off puts me off.
I've taken an art test where I had an hour limit, as well as day limit; something like twenty hours over four days (including a weekend). Now obviously someone could lie, but if you assume candidates are honest it evens the playing field.
I'm still not quite convinced. Yes, limiting time allows you to control the environment more, which mean less distortion of the results due to factors out of your control.
But is a 1 hour art test really a meaningful decision making tool? Or is it just some random HR inspired hoop to weed people out and make you feel good because "hey, it's a test - we're not randomly throwing out people"?
I'm not against art tests as such, but I think it should happen within reason, and in direct relationship to skills and project/product. I'd be highly sceptical of any place with a "hey model this, and then we talk" approach.
It's definitely unprofessional for a studio to simply not answer once the art test goes in. I don't care how many applicants you had, how much crunch you do; it's simple politeness to at least send a copy paste email to tell the applicant that he was not chosen. I always prefer a unique mail obviously, but I can understand the lack of time. Not the lack of professionalism though.
I've been fortunate to only do art test with a recruiter acting as the middle man, so I never had any communication problem. It's a bit slower as you have to send questions to the recruiter who then asks the studio, but the guy will take it unpon him to chase up the studio if the answers don't come. Of course I'm pretty sure there's plenty of horror stories with recruiters too!
Regarding art test, I think they are actually very useful. A portfolio is all well and good, but there are some skills which are very hard to picture. When you get an art test with some guidelines and a timeframe, you can start taking the hard decisions to do as much as you can in that timeframe. Our job is not to make the best visuals, but to make the best visuals in the budget we have (which is time at our level, money for the higher ups).
A portfolio completely bypass that, it's even largely advised to focus on ultra quality, the kind of which is not even doable in a production environment. An art test allows you to plan things, take decisions and explain those decisions when you present your work. You can show your ability to come up with different workflows to speed things up, and document the pros and cons of doing so. You can show your technical abilities, show what sacrifices you made and why (fixed camera, ...). All of these are actually extremely sought after by studio, but very hard to picture in a portfolio. If anything, most studio think no entry-level guy will have this kind of knowledge, but it's a huge mistake in my opinion.
Art test are flawed, but I think they're still a chance for an entry-level guy to really show himself and shine. Much more than on a portfolio which will always be lacking compared to big shots.
And yay for Phone/Skype interview > Art Test > Interview on site. :thumbup:
Funny thing is, I don't know of another field outside of the creative industry where this is the done thing. All other professions go off of your experience and references, and then you have a short probation period where you're properly tested on the job.
A professional can judge someone's technical/artistic skills from their portfolio. An art test is flawed if testing their speed, or the many other skills needed in a production environment. There will always be businesses that take advantage of whatever they can. Ultimately it comes down to the artists. Like I said, I only consider them now if I'd get enough out of it without getting the job, or a reply. Which most of the time is a no.
Most artists don't really have that option. They can't just turn down potential job offers on principal or whatever. Bills to pay and all that.
Is that true for most of you?
I'm 29 and I have a fair amount of friends that are professional artists and these guys aren't begging for jobs. They're sought after and paid well.
Maybe when you're 21, it's a bit different and you need to take whatever you can get, but people that aren't fresh out of school CAN pick and choose who they want to work for.
At 22, I feel like I don't have many options. In this VERY specific moment in time, I feel incredibly lucky to even have work, and I attribute most of that to the 2 people I talked to at GDC. I have a feeling this is the beginning of me starting up my brand to clients, so I'm on their minds as I continute making work, etc.
That being said, I've gotten face-to-face critiques from many Polycounters that, given my portfolio, I'm game-studio ready. It's just a matter of focusing and continuing to work, so I thank God for that. It's no longer a question of "can you REALLY do it?" and more of an art direction issue.
In my head, I won;t be able to breathe until I'm with a studio team working on a game for at least a year or two.
Most artists don't really have that option. They can't just turn down potential job offers on principal or whatever. Bills to pay and all that.
I emphasize that I'm referring to early art tests.
People with bills to pay don't have the luxury of taking a week off to do an art test. And you are in competition with someone who has every hour of the day to throw at it. If you're taking an art test at the very beginning of the application process, the odds are that you are doing a lot of free work and not getting the job. I wonder if anyone would apply for a job if the application form took a week to complete. But then people get offered an art test and think, "oooh they must be really interested in me. I've got good enough odds to invest all of that time"
The only time I've ever gotten work from an art test, was when it was given to me at the very end of the application process, after the interviews, and it was required because my portfolio and interview didn't provide enough evidence of a specific skill. The rest have been a waste of time, and some have left a bitter taste. More fool me for being naive.
Art tests are beneficial to EVERYONE involved. For the studio and the applicant.
For the studio...
Gives them a good even playing field as everyone is taking the same test. All tests have guidelines you must follow, all have suggested time frames of completion, all have the same budgets and concept to base things off.
When you submit your art test every place I have seen has asked how much time it took you to complete. So that throws the idea of how super unfair it is for people who can only put in 20hrs compared to people who put in 40.
Studios get HUNDREDS of people applying. Like its fucking ridiculous, most people here I don't think really have an idea at the volume. There are so many people that want jobs in this industry and the better your studio is, the more and more resumes you get.
Studios DONT give out art tests to everyone who applies. They give them out to people who has enough skill that if they do a great job on the art test they would hire that person. That means people who have good but not amazing portfolios. (this is how every studio I know handles art test, yes there might be some that just give them out to anyone)
For the applicant...
Not everyone has the most bomb ass portfolio. You could work at a subpar company and cant have that killer game attached to your name. You could have a life outside of work and only have 1 or 2 things in your folio that really show how awesome you are.
Doing an art test gives you a chance to show exactly how skilled you are and to show if you are better or worse than other people. You are doing the same test so you get the most realistically possible fair comparison (bringing people into the studio to all do an art test at the same time is not realistically possible)
To the original point being made though, yes once you submit an art test you absolutely should get a response from the company letting you know they received it and reviewed it and the out come of that review. With a yes or no response at least, its a shame not everyone does that if you put in the effort of there art test. If they company can give you a critique, thats awesome but its not something they should be required to do, nor should it be something to expect.
They are a business and there job is to be making a video game. Not to critique your work. Come to Polycount and post your personal work up here if you want a critique.
Art tests are beneficial to EVERYONE involved. For the studio and the applicant.
For the applicant...
Not everyone has the most bomb ass portfolio. You could work at a subpar company and cant have that killer game attached to your name. You could have a life outside of work and only have 1 or 2 things in your folio that really show how awesome you are.
Doing an art test gives you a chance to show exactly how skilled you are and to show if you are better or worse than other people. You are doing the same test so you get the most realistically possible fair comparison (bringing people into the studio to all do an art test at the same time is not realistically possible)
Next you're gonna tell me that being forced to crunch non stop is good for the employee too because they:
A - Get twice the experience in half the time!
B - Get to enjoy the satisfaction of working really hard on something!
C - It's great exposure to show how hard working you are!
Next you're gonna tell me that being forced to crunch non stop is good for the employee too because they:
A - Get twice the experience in half the time!
B - Get to enjoy the satisfaction of working really hard on something!
C - It's great exposure to show how hard working you are!
I don't see how you made such a wild leap to that conclusion. Nothing I said was even remotely close to anything you listed.
Yes I believe art tests are beneficial to applicants. As I said, not everyone has a fucking killer portfolio. There are lots of super talented people who wouldn't be where they are today if things were just based on there portfolio.
Portfolio work is easier to fake, you can take months or years to complete an environment. On an art test you cant. On personal work you can make whatever creative decisions you want, on an art test you are follow the same guidelines as everyone else. It will show if you are better than other people or not. Simple as that.
I got my job at Bungie based off my art test. My portfolio was ok at the time. If they based the job off just my folio I would have never gotten the job. I didn't have a rockstart folio.
I knew I could show them that I could do the tasks they set in front of me. I knew that if they gave me an art test I would knock it out of the park.
I knew where my skill level was, I wasn't wasting my time doing an art test way beyond my skill level.
Putting all your time into one art test for one company isn't efficient for the applicant. They could spend their time on a portfolio piece that they use to apply to every company. A failed art test isn't exactly the best portfolio piece.
If art tests are so fantastic, do you think every company should have them? Wouldn't that make unemployment fun. A minimum of 20 hours of work for every job application!
(yes, you gave some excellent reasons why art tests are good for the studio)
When you submit your art test every place I have seen has asked how much time it took you to complete. So that throws the idea of how super unfair it is for people who can only put in 20hrs compared to people who put in 40.
Studios get HUNDREDS of people applying. Like its fucking ridiculous, most people here I don't think really have an idea at the volume. There are so many people that want jobs in this industry and the better your studio is, the more and more resumes you get.
Studios DONT give out art tests to everyone who applies. They give them out to people who has enough skill that if they do a great job on the art test they would hire that person. That means people who have good but not amazing portfolios.
Hundreds of applicants and they only give tests out to those with decent portfolios. I'd imagine that's usually the case. I asked a large studio that I applied for, how many candidates were taking their test. It was 50+ and counting.
They give them out to people who has enough skill that if they do a great job on the art test they would hire that person
But doing a great art test definitely does not mean you will be hired. With such a large number of applicants there are also a large number of great tests. I mean I've done great art tests and didn't even get a reply.
It doesn't matter how good your art test is if you or the studio are not a good fit. An interview should come first. An art test should only be needed if they're undecided between several candidates later on.
For the applicant...
Not everyone has the most bomb ass portfolio. You could work at a subpar company and cant have that killer game attached to your name. You could have a life outside of work and only have 1 or 2 things in your folio that really show how awesome you are.
But if your portfolio's not decent then you won't be getting an art test anyway.
bringing people into the studio to all do an art test at the same time is not realistically possible
At the place I interviewed at, 7 employees were also involved. It was a way to see how well the candidates fitted in. Most places don't work like that. It was nice to see a company put such value in it's staff. And it reflected that too.
The few art tests i've done, i try to not give them too much of a good work. Specifically if they want me to hand them over the meshes. Giving the texture is ok, but i tend to not put everything i know in the assignment and keep some secrets.
Because they might reuse my work for their own characters. I learned that over the years and im not going to say where.
A failed art test isn't exactly the best portfolio piece.
Good point. An art test would have to benefit my portfolio, but I've always felt awkward showing them at an interview. It's like, "I wasn't good enough for this company. You interested?"
Would you ask a Lawyer to put in 80 hours for free on your case, only to decide you want to go with another firm because it wasn't up to your standards?
Would you ask a mechanic for 80 hours of free work, drive around town and decide you don't want to pay them for their labor?
We are professionals, please respect yourself and others, stop giving away your work for free.
We are professionals, please respect yourself and others, stop giving away your work for free.
I think this hits the nail on the head. Compared to other professions, I see many creatives who don't properly value their time and work. That is what needs to change.
Putting all your time into one art test for one company isn't efficient for the applicant. They could spend their time on a portfolio piece that they use to apply to every company. A failed art test isn't exactly the best portfolio piece.
If art tests are so fantastic, do you think every company should have them? Wouldn't that make unemployment fun. A minimum of 20 hours of work for every job application!
(yes, you gave some excellent reasons why art tests are good for the studio)
Yes you are correct in that regard that art tests are time sinks that could pan out to be nothing. No denying that.
That does not change the fact that art tests are good for the applicant in the regard that it gives everyone competing for that job a more even slate. It gives you the ability to prove how talented you actually are and if you can do the job the company requires.
Your competing for a highly sought after creative job. Not every studio needs or requires art tests. If you are against the idea of them, there are plenty of places you can work at.
Art tests are not just about making pretty art. Art tests are what your job at that company will be.
An art test will show you can adhere to the budgets set by the company. It will show that you can produce the art style required by the company. It will show you can follow a given concept and replicate it to a desired level. It will show that you can complete something within a given deadline.
These are things that cannot be shown in a portfolio piece. In personal work, you set the budgets, you set the time frame, you choose the style, you choose what to change from the concept, you choose the scope of the project.
The best way to compare 2 applicants is have them do the same thing with the same guidelines.
Don't you think the best way to compare applicants would be to have them actually work in the studio for a month or two? That way you can see them creating the actual game assets before your eyes, and can also get a feel for if they'd be a good fit with the company culture.
Of course, don't pay them, it's still just an application process after all.
And sure, you're losing a month of unpaid work if you don't get the job, but it's a highly sought after creative position after all. You've gotta expect some sacrifices if you want to work in the game industry.
And think about all the good experience the applicant will get out of it!
We are professionals, please respect yourself and others, stop giving away your work for free.
Oh please stop this bullshit. It has nothing to do with not respecting yourself or others. It has nothing to do with giving your work away for free.
You are NEVER required to do an art test. You are NEVER required to give away your work for free.
YOU are applying for a company. YOU are deciding if you wish to take there art test. YOU are deciding if YOU feel doing a test that could lead no where is worth your time. YOU are choosing what to do with your time, not the company.
When someone asks you to do an art test, you know what you can say? You can say No. You don't have to do an art test for anyone, you don't have to work for free at all. If you respect yourself and don't want to waste your time then fucking don't. Dont do an art test for a company if you don't want to.
You can even tell a company that asks you to do an art test that you feel your portfolio and resume speaks enough for itself and they should be able to make there decision off that and an interview. People do that when applying here at ND all the time. I'm not saying it will work out, but again if you value your time and dont feel you should do an art test say so.
You can also tell a company that you feel you should be compensated for your time on doing an art test that could be otherwise spent on doing a portfolio piece. They most likely will say no, but then you know what? If you respect yourself and dont feel like you should do any work, art test or not for free then DONT!
NEVER do any work for free unless YOU have decided its something you want to do.
A company is not coming to you and asking you to take a test and do free work for them.
There are hundreds of companys that do not require an art test, there are tons of ways to make money doing 3D art that do not require an art test. You can sell 3d models online, you can create tutorial videos and sell those, you can make 3d prints of things and sell those. You can get a job at a studio that does not require art tests. You can make your own game.
Aesir I see alot of things that wouldn't be realistic with that. It's been said Art Tests can be a waste of time, imagine if you didn't get the job, you'd be out of a month, big waste of time. People can't jump around the country of the world month to month trying out companies. Not everyone looking for work is unemployed and can leave their current job for a month. If you have multiple applicant's where are you going to put them, how do you divide the time and tasks up properly? Also ruins any confidentiality between applicants having them all working together. Companies would probably take major advantage of applicant's being in a "hiring" phase using artists for a month unpaid and dumping them in the end. I can also see the whole "I'm a harder worker than this other person, I'm going to show it by working 100 hour weeks", the applicant might crunch for a month unpaid for a job they might not get and be burnt out before they even get the job!
Also I think you're being sarcastic in your post? But I'm not sure! LOL
I think art tests are alright, especially for newer artists. If you have a strong portfolio and some professional work in there maybe then an art test I think is less appropriate.
Oh please stop this bullshit. It has nothing to do with not respecting yourself or others.
It has everything to do with respecting yourself and others. When a candidate applies to a company with a well-suited portfolio and CV, and the company immediately responds with an art test, they are being disrespectful of the candidate's time. They'll have enough information there to make a well judged decision whether or not to proceed with an interview.
You listed a bunch of reasons why portfolio work won't suffice compared to an art test, but other than speed (which is flawed), those things should be evident in the portfolio of a strong candidate who has tailored his application to the company. As you say, there are many other studios able to make that decision without the need for an art test.
If an applicant's work isn't well-suited, but you think they might have something, then an art test would be appropriate. But having it as standard procedure is lazy and disrespectful.
It has everything to do with respecting yourself and others. When a candidate applies to a company with a well-suited portfolio and CV, and the company immediately responds with an art test, they are being disrespectful of the candidate's time. They'll have enough information there to make a well judged decision whether or not to proceed with an interview.
You listed a bunch of reasons why portfolio work won't suffice compared to an art test, but other than speed (which is flawed), those things should be evident in the portfolio of a strong candidate who has tailored his application to the company. As you say, there are many other studios able to make that decision without the need for an art test.
If an applicant's work isn't well-suited, but you think they might have something, then an art test would be appropriate. But having it as standard procedure is lazy and disrespectful.
You are making broad generalizations of all company's and art tests based off a select few you don't like or had issues with. You are complaining how company's disrespect applicants when in the majority of all cases that is untrue. So yes I feel that is bullshit.
The general practice of MOST studios is not to send out art tests to everyone who applies. Most people who apply never hear back from studios. I only know of 2 studios who legitimately give out an art test to everyone, and both those studios have there art test on there website before you even apply.
MOST studios still go through all applicants, weed out people who have no chance of getting a job by skimming there folio and only give out art tests to those people they feel COULD get a job there.
These broad generalizations that every studio just gives out art tests to anyone who submits a application is total bullshit.
I have probably applied to at least 30+ company's in my time doing 3d. I have only ever received 4 requests of me to do an art test. One of them I turned down because I felt my skill and folio was enough. Because I respect myself as a person/artist to say no and not just do an art test because its given to me. (They ended up flying me out for an interview)
Its not disrespectful of a company to give you an art test, its not required for you to do an art test given to you. Some places require you to take one to work there, but hey, guess what. You dont have to work there. You dont have to take there stupid test and spend your time on it.
Just because YOU find the idea of company's giving you an art test disrespectful does not mean everyone does. I have never felt disrespected being asked to take an art test. The ones I did, I was fully aware that it could lead to nothing and I was fine with that. I made that choice just like everyone else who does an art test. You dont like them, dont do them.
It has everything to do with respecting yourself and others. When a candidate applies to a company with a well-suited portfolio and CV, and the company immediately responds with an art test, they are being disrespectful of the candidate's time. They'll have enough information there to make a well judged decision whether or not to proceed with an interview.
You listed a bunch of reasons why portfolio work won't suffice compared to an art test, but other than speed (which is flawed), those things should be evident in the portfolio of a strong candidate who has tailored his application to the company. As you say, there are many other studios able to make that decision without the need for an art test.
If an applicant's work isn't well-suited, but you think they might have something, then an art test would be appropriate. But having it as standard procedure is lazy and disrespectful.
While I agree that art tests aren't the best way to approach potential employees, saying that someone who agrees to take one has no self respect is pretty insulting. Do I wish studios could judge an individual by his folio alone...of course! But I've been on both sides of the situation. I have been at companies where artists were hired who had great folios, did not take art tests, and did not work well within the company. An art test might have determined that ahead of time. Neither a folio nor an art test alone can really tell a company if an individual is a perfect fit but it helps to have both. What is disrespectful is when someone completes an art test and then never hears back from the studio. I think you are hitting a nerve because you are basically insulting game artists in a game art forum. Probably not the best place to call out game artists who have taken art tests.
It almost seems like a lot of the "they are making me waste my time" and "not respecting me by replying or giving feedback" posts are coming from people with zero experience in the industry on a non freelance level.
As someone who has been in charge of being at the same time a Lead artists on a project, trying to manage time and people and asked to review CV´s and artwork in my *cough* "SPARE TIME" at work I will tell you this.
I would power through demo material fast. CV´s I would not even read unless the demo material was up to snuff or I saw potential in the first one or two images provided.
Where people had worked, what their responsibilities there were or how awesome of a person they might be did not even come into consideration unless the demo artwork peaked my interest in the first one or two images.
If it did, it got put to the side and got a second and more proper looking at.
Reply emails were NEVER sent out unless we were interested in the person as a possible employee.
It was not about disrespect, it was about time.
I had already wasted valuable time going over the material I got sent, and time is money.
Applicants do NOT deserve a response for each sent application.
You are not important enough for a company to give a flying fuck about unless they want more from you.
You are one of a thousand each month. If the company is not interested, you are not worth the minutes in money to them.
Harden up, get better, try again!
If you have not heard back in 3-4 weeks, don´t take it as a sign of insult.. take it as a sign that you need to improve your work.
That in it self is feedback.
I´m sorry if that sounded harsh, but that is just how things were when I was involved in the industry years back..
And given the massive increase in wanna-be/gonna-be gaming artists since then I can only imagine it was gotten worse.
am i the only person who actually enjoyed doing art tests when i was job searching?
and i'm not one with a lot of extra time.
true - it's a bummer to not hear back...but that's the nature of looking for work. and it's not unique to game art.
if you make an art test and don't hear back..o well. you still have a portfolio piece unless it was specifically stated that you couldn't share the work you made...which i've never seen.
if finishing an art test DOESN'T net you a potential art test...well..i guess you should already know why they didn't respond to you.
It almost seems like a lot of the "they are making me waste my time" and "not respecting me by replying or giving feedback" posts are coming from people with zero experience in the industry on a non freelance level.
As someone who has been in charge of being at the same time a Lead artists on a project, trying to manage time and people and asked to review CV´s and artwork in my *cough* "SPARE TIME" at work I will tell you this.
I would power through demo material fast. CV´s I would not even read unless the demo material was up to snuff or I saw potential in the first one or two images provided.
Where people had worked, what their responsibilities there were or how awesome of a person they might be did not even come into consideration unless the demo artwork peaked my interest in the first one or two images.
If it did, it got put to the side and got a second and more proper looking at.
Reply emails were NEVER sent out unless we were interested in the person as a possible employee.
It was not about disrespect, it was about time.
I had already wasted valuable time going over the material I got sent, and time is money.
Applicants do NOT deserve a response for each sent application.
You are not important enough for a company to give a flying fuck about unless they want more from you.
You are one of a thousand each month. If the company is not interested, you are not worth the minutes in money to them.
Harden up, get better, try again!
If you have not heard back in 3-4 weeks, don´t take it as a sign of insult.. take it as a sign that you need to improve your work.
That in it self is feedback.
I´m sorry if that sounded harsh, but that is just how things were when I was involved in the industry years back..
And given the massive increase in wanna-be/gonna-be gaming artists since then I can only imagine it was gotten worse.
Suck it up.. Improve your work.. try again..
Extremely blunt, but I agree with this 100%.
It's a harsh reality, especially when you have to watch your friends struggle every day with empty inboxes and a head full of dreams.
A) Have you, or do you know anyone that has said no to doing an art test when requested, and still got the job?
In terms of not hearing back, do you guys not send follow ups? If I don't hear back within a certain time, I definitely send follow up emails asking what the status of my application is, and how they thought of the test. Especially if they say I`ll hear back by x day, if a week goes by past that date, I follow up. At that point I have already moved on, but I still want a yes or no.
A) Have you, or do you know anyone that has said no to doing an art test when requested, and still got the job?
If you refuse to take an art test when asked to do one, you better have a portfolio that blows people away to back that refusal up or else you will instantly go to the "NOPE" folder.
In terms of not hearing back, do you guys not send follow ups? If I don't hear back within a certain time, I definitely send follow up emails asking what the status of my application is, and how they thought of the test. Especially if they say I`ll hear back by x day, if a week goes by past that date, I follow up. At that point I have already moved on, but I still want a yes or no.
A follow up can be good, but it can also be bad. If you do make a follow up, do it as politely as humanly possible, and only do so once.
A follow up request means someone has to search for your application, see the feedback on it or find who ever made the decision not to talk to you, find out why and then reply to you. At that point you have wasted multiple people´s valuable time and taken time away from application reviews.
If everyone sent follow up requests, it would simply end up that all of them would get ignored due to time constraints.
Which I would guess is the case for a lot of the larger companies that get a boatload of applications per month.
The odds that you will get any valuable feedback on your work on a test is slim to none.
The reviewer looks at it quickly and see´s if he likes it or not.
It will very rarely get analyzed in detail, and thus the feedback would most likely be a simple good/bad. Which incidentally you would already have gotten via a reply to your application or no.. If they think its good/ok/workable and they want to interview you, more than likely you will get feedback at said interview along with questions on why you did things the way you did.
You are making broad generalizations of all company's and art tests based off a select few you don't like or had issues with. You are complaining how company's disrespect applicants when in the majority of all cases that is untrue. So yes I feel that is bullshit.
These broad generalizations that every studio just gives out art tests to anyone who submits a application is total bullshit.
I've no idea where you got this. I never mentioned all companies, and I never mentioned every applicant getting an art test. Don't put words in my mouth.
While I agree that art tests aren't the best way to approach potential employees, saying that someone who agrees to take one has no self respect is pretty insulting.
That's not what I said. It's about valuing your work and time under the circumstances.
Art tests under the right circumstances can be useful. My issue comes when recruiters waste peoples' time by giving very long tests to a large number of applicants at the start, when it could be dealt with more efficiently. And when they decide not to reply to them.
Btw this is coming from someone with in-house and freelance experience. And I've made a lot more than 30+ applications (unfortunately).
These art tests can only be possible because of over supply and nothing else. I believe the guy who says that there are hundreds of applicants and not the one who says all my friends are sought after. Offshore cheap and good (skillful) labor, digital delivery and the spread of knowledge and software that runs well on cheap hardware are the culprits, not to mention CG art and especially 3D art is just damn expensive to make which results in very high overheads. Its hard for studios to create work so its hard for artists to get work particularly when there are so many effective alternatives.
But to go back to the op's point. Dont give out tests if you dont have time to send a thank you note. Just because your company is too cheap to hire someone to do this work handing even an 8 hour test out and not spending 2 minutes to give even a simple reaction is devoid of class. Its the kind of thing I would expect of administrators who dont understand the effort involved in creating something. If you ask a pencil pusher to spend 8 hours doing your taxes for free you will get a howl of derision, but because artists are supposed to love their work they should be overjoyed at the possibility to use their skill for nothing.
It has everything to do with respecting yourself and others. When a candidate applies to a company with a well-suited portfolio and CV, and the company immediately responds with an art test, they are being disrespectful of the candidate's time. They'll have enough information there to make a well judged decision whether or not to proceed with an interview.
Actually, the problem is.. That I can put everything in CV (because hey, it just some piece of document, with anything I can lie all the way), and portfolio. There is no telling how things in portfolio were done.
Tests, are done, to verify, that what are people telling is truth actually.
The day, when we can trust each on other on word given, will be great day. But that day is not today.
OP's problem seems more like "sudden loss of communication" rather than "no response" at all - i.e. sending your resume to a black hole. The black hole issue is fairly common though and there are plenty of good reasons why it happens. But people just stopping to respond in the middle of a started recruiting process??
Yeah, this is exactly what happened to me. ^^
Everything was going fine until sent a finished art-test. Every question regarding to the art-test was fully answered.
I made this topic because it's simply strange to me and I wanted opinion from other professionalists from game-industry.
Although I am discouraged to making other art-tests also I have better idea how to proceed. Obviously "keeping going" is obvious but now I can better approach to future art-tests if there will be some.
I don't think it is possible to get money from an art-test (but sometimes maybe worth a try), but asking for makin' it AFTER preliminary skype interview should be a good thing to do.
Just pick and choose your tests, if they seem unstructured or are asking for 2 weeks of work then have a quick think to yourself regarding what you're going to get out of the 2 weeks if everything goes badly. (Folio assets / etc), don't take every test given to you for the sake of it.
This is also a good advise in my opinion. Although my first art test gave me nothing except some experience (cuz subject was completely uninteresting), my second one, after changing some thing is going to my portfolio soon.
Actually, the problem is.. That I can put everything in CV (because hey, it just some piece of document, with anything I can lie all the way), and portfolio. There is no telling how things in portfolio were done.
Tests, are done, to verify, that what are people telling is truth actually.
The day, when we can trust each on other on word given, will be great day. But that day is not today.
Yes, that happens a lot with CVs and applications in all professions.
An art test doesn't mean a true representation. I could work more than I proclaim to. I could get a friend to come and help. I could spend time learning new skills that I didn't previously know. I could be very productive working alone at home but not in a studio. I could be working lots of shifts with no time to spare. You get the gist.
I was once offered a test in a field that I was not very experienced in. I'd exaggerated my skills, took the test, and learnt what I needed to know during the test. My test was 100x better than if I was doing it on the job. If I got the position, my plan was to heavily cram before I started. Did it give the recruiter a clear representation of my skills? Absolutely not.
People in all professions exaggerate their applications, and only paint themselves in the best light. The only way to really know is by them being on the job. Which is what probation periods are for.
I could be working lots of shifts with no time to spare
Which brings up another point, descrimination. As with unpaid internships, only candidates who are financially able (eg still living at home with mum and dad, with no outgoings) are able to apply. Others can't afford to take such long tests. Unpaid internships get a lot of heat, both ethically and legally. But with an art test you're effectively doing a 1-2 week unpaid internship, without any of the benefits of the internship, and a much smaller % chance of being hired at the end of it. That's not something to be thought of lightly.
Its a sucky thing to do but it seems most places want a test, and tbh it does serve a purpose, e.g how well u can stick to a concepts style.. Anyway i have a story!
So awhile back when still unemployed i got an interview with a pretty well known studio, went great, got a rigging test few days later, i had a week to complete it. I felt i did pretty well, had to work it around freelance stuff so some things where rushed..but i ended up with another interview a couple days after submitting it. Personally when i get an interview after a test i think shit is going well. That was 9 months ago and i never heard back(obv i gave in after 2 weeks) but 2 long ass interviews and a test that cut into paid work and not even a response after that second interview... I don't expect anything after the first interview if they are not interested, but after 3 stages a 'Thank you for your time but unfortunately.. ' email would have been appreciated. Anyway bullet dodged from what i've heard from people i work with now
Oh and funny enough one of my other friends who is an enviro artist had the exact same shit from these guys.
I don't expect anything after the first interview if they are not interested, but after 3 stages a 'Thank you for your time but unfortunately.. ' email would have been appreciated.
Which brings up another point, descrimination. As with unpaid internships, only candidates who are financially able (eg still living at home with mum and dad, with no outgoings) are able to apply. Others can't afford to take such long tests. Unpaid internships get a lot of heat, both ethically and legally. But with an art test you're effectively doing a 1-2 week unpaid internship, without any of the benefits of the internship, and a much smaller % chance of being hired at the end of it. That's not something to be thought of lightly.
Unpaid internships are not a common practice in this industry like others. The idea of unpaid interns who go into an office and only get coffee for there boss is not something that happens in this industry.
All the internships I know of pay at least minimum wage. Blizzard, Insomniac, SoE blah blah blah. Sure there might be a few small companies that try and sucker you into that, but fuck that. Those internships at those companys are not worth it. Never make artwork for a company that stands to profit off it and not be compensated for your time.
Only being able to judge someone by bringing them on for a probation period is again 100% unrealistic.
You eliminate EVERYONE who doesn't live within driving distance of your studio. Relocation is crazy expensive. The studio is not going to drop a few grand on each person they want to "try out" for a while. Nor is the applicant going to spend thousands of dollars to move cross country for a job that might not pan out. That is even more insulting than doing an art test and not hearing back from it.
You also eliminate 75% of everyone who applies. You can only hire people who seem to have the absolute best portfolio. Hiring people is expensive. Even if its just probation (which is not a real thing. they are hired on contract and must agree to terms that you still have to pay them) So you are not going to waste your time and money on people who don't have the most amazing portfolio.
And there are tons of people with ok portfolios but are crazy talented. I have seen the art tests here at ND of people who fucking KILLED it but have just ok folios. They would never have a chance to prove themselves. Why would a company try out someone who has an ok portfolio? That would be a huge waste of money.
Time is money and company's want to to make money. If they don't make money, they cant make there next game.
I swear, from everything that written in here that doesn't relate to OP, I'm waiting for someone to say the next logical thing; "Have less kids, so each persons weight is more important instead of being expendable, hence companies will give you actual importance".
*Is waiting for the next elephant in the room; spouses gone wild who hire inside the family to a studio, even if they live in a country on the other side of the world*.
How about this: for some cases it might be good to make it great, then use it for your portfolio piece and if the model they give you to texture or the type or style of asset they requested you to make can't result is a usable portfolio piece, maybe ask if there is something else they could make? Is that realistic?
It almost sounds like this industry could really use a Union to give some weight to the worker's needs. Yikes. We haven't had a significant genetic change in 10,000 years people, all those human imperfections of ignorance and lack of empathy for others that have led to all the suffering and using of others in history we are still suitable to. The employee hiring you may have never once considered what it is like to have a full time job and family while doing an art test. This is why young people scare me, we are all born with zero in our heads.
Time is money and company's want to to make money. If they don't make money, they cant make there next game.
Everything you wrote sounds reasonable. Time is money but it goes both ways. You cant make a game without people. There will come a time when people wont be necessary and companies will gladly do without them, but for now we are still necessary. I respect studios for providing the chance to make a living at what I love, but respect runs both ways and if money is all its about then that is a place I don't want to work for.
Another way to look at it is that no comment or a very delayed comment says a lot about the company you applied to, so that's something positive. What is the time you spend on an average art test anyhow? Anyone know?
Also to the guy who wants a union, I have seen unions become self serving businesses that damage their members and charge a fee on top so I wouldn't go there if I was you.
Sorry I am in a 'sweeping generalization' mood atm.
Replies
I have been given critiques on Art Tests before good and bad, and even though the critiques were not super long essays they were enough to help me learn from my mistakes.
Typing a sentence to a person who spent a week or two working on an art test while also working a full-time job doesn't take too long and not only is appreciated it shows that the company actually cares about the time investment that that person has put into that asset.
Also i can see how this would be an issue if you giving out Art Tests to everyone that applies which in itself is a terrible thing to do and i know several larger companies that do this.
My stance is Only give out Art Test's to applicants that you are interested in hiring from Experience/portfolio work. and give feedback to those applicants if they fail or pass.
It takes 5 minutes to write quick feedback for an art test and send it off to HR to forward to the applicant. and if your hiring process isn't a gong show you should probably have time during the day to do that.
I can't say I totally disagree. those reasons make some sense.
But why bother with a folio when it all comes down to the test anyway?
On the other hand, I don't think a single asset says much. When people do an art test next to work, the deadline means nothing. One guy can invest 40 hours because he works a half-day job, the other can spend 10. One guy can still get lucky with that one asset, because he loves the subject matter, the other don't. And if you make a game, is that asset really representative of the all your characters / props / environments, or is it just a random pieces? Some artists have access to software others have not. So you should also prescribe them to use software your studio uses, to best replicate the setting.
I think we're fooling ourselves into believing the field is level because "everyone works on the same asset", but reality is more complex than that. Unless you put people on site in a controlled environment, the art test isn't a strong tool for comparison between different applicants.
I've taken an art test where I had an hour limit, as well as day limit; something like twenty hours over four days (including a weekend). Now obviously someone could lie, but if you assume candidates are honest it evens the playing field.
The portfolio is a representation of your work, and a decent one will at the very least get you past the HR person who is weeding through all the shit (also reason to not have a shitty CV) and further up the line to someone who knows what they are looking at.
For the getting lucky part, most tests are going to reflect the type of work the studio or the project they are looking to hire a candidate for, so if someone who is less talented does better on a test because they like the subject matter, so be it, it is useful information.
Sure some places give out art tests willy nilly, but I still think they are useful gauges even with their flaws.
Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to cardinal positions by Catholic popes and bishops.
Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy.
:poly124:
Not getting a response after spending valuable time on a test is just not cool. It shows a lack of care, and really reflects poorly on the company for me.
Granted, I find an art test reasonable if a particular applicant that the company is interested in has a portfolio that doesnt fully demonstrate the required qualifications but potentially could. Probably the most annoying thing Ive ran into is an art test with an NDA. Something about spending 2-3 weeks on a project that I will never be able to show off puts me off.
I'm still not quite convinced. Yes, limiting time allows you to control the environment more, which mean less distortion of the results due to factors out of your control.
But is a 1 hour art test really a meaningful decision making tool? Or is it just some random HR inspired hoop to weed people out and make you feel good because "hey, it's a test - we're not randomly throwing out people"?
I'm not against art tests as such, but I think it should happen within reason, and in direct relationship to skills and project/product. I'd be highly sceptical of any place with a "hey model this, and then we talk" approach.
I've been fortunate to only do art test with a recruiter acting as the middle man, so I never had any communication problem. It's a bit slower as you have to send questions to the recruiter who then asks the studio, but the guy will take it unpon him to chase up the studio if the answers don't come. Of course I'm pretty sure there's plenty of horror stories with recruiters too!
Regarding art test, I think they are actually very useful. A portfolio is all well and good, but there are some skills which are very hard to picture. When you get an art test with some guidelines and a timeframe, you can start taking the hard decisions to do as much as you can in that timeframe. Our job is not to make the best visuals, but to make the best visuals in the budget we have (which is time at our level, money for the higher ups).
A portfolio completely bypass that, it's even largely advised to focus on ultra quality, the kind of which is not even doable in a production environment. An art test allows you to plan things, take decisions and explain those decisions when you present your work. You can show your ability to come up with different workflows to speed things up, and document the pros and cons of doing so. You can show your technical abilities, show what sacrifices you made and why (fixed camera, ...). All of these are actually extremely sought after by studio, but very hard to picture in a portfolio. If anything, most studio think no entry-level guy will have this kind of knowledge, but it's a huge mistake in my opinion.
Art test are flawed, but I think they're still a chance for an entry-level guy to really show himself and shine. Much more than on a portfolio which will always be lacking compared to big shots.
And yay for Phone/Skype interview > Art Test > Interview on site. :thumbup:
Funny thing is, I don't know of another field outside of the creative industry where this is the done thing. All other professions go off of your experience and references, and then you have a short probation period where you're properly tested on the job.
A professional can judge someone's technical/artistic skills from their portfolio. An art test is flawed if testing their speed, or the many other skills needed in a production environment. There will always be businesses that take advantage of whatever they can. Ultimately it comes down to the artists. Like I said, I only consider them now if I'd get enough out of it without getting the job, or a reply. Which most of the time is a no.
Is that true for most of you?
I'm 29 and I have a fair amount of friends that are professional artists and these guys aren't begging for jobs. They're sought after and paid well.
Maybe when you're 21, it's a bit different and you need to take whatever you can get, but people that aren't fresh out of school CAN pick and choose who they want to work for.
That being said, I've gotten face-to-face critiques from many Polycounters that, given my portfolio, I'm game-studio ready. It's just a matter of focusing and continuing to work, so I thank God for that. It's no longer a question of "can you REALLY do it?" and more of an art direction issue.
In my head, I won;t be able to breathe until I'm with a studio team working on a game for at least a year or two.
People with bills to pay don't have the luxury of taking a week off to do an art test. And you are in competition with someone who has every hour of the day to throw at it. If you're taking an art test at the very beginning of the application process, the odds are that you are doing a lot of free work and not getting the job. I wonder if anyone would apply for a job if the application form took a week to complete. But then people get offered an art test and think, "oooh they must be really interested in me. I've got good enough odds to invest all of that time"
The only time I've ever gotten work from an art test, was when it was given to me at the very end of the application process, after the interviews, and it was required because my portfolio and interview didn't provide enough evidence of a specific skill. The rest have been a waste of time, and some have left a bitter taste. More fool me for being naive.
For the studio...
Gives them a good even playing field as everyone is taking the same test. All tests have guidelines you must follow, all have suggested time frames of completion, all have the same budgets and concept to base things off.
When you submit your art test every place I have seen has asked how much time it took you to complete. So that throws the idea of how super unfair it is for people who can only put in 20hrs compared to people who put in 40.
Studios get HUNDREDS of people applying. Like its fucking ridiculous, most people here I don't think really have an idea at the volume. There are so many people that want jobs in this industry and the better your studio is, the more and more resumes you get.
Studios DONT give out art tests to everyone who applies. They give them out to people who has enough skill that if they do a great job on the art test they would hire that person. That means people who have good but not amazing portfolios. (this is how every studio I know handles art test, yes there might be some that just give them out to anyone)
For the applicant...
Not everyone has the most bomb ass portfolio. You could work at a subpar company and cant have that killer game attached to your name. You could have a life outside of work and only have 1 or 2 things in your folio that really show how awesome you are.
Doing an art test gives you a chance to show exactly how skilled you are and to show if you are better or worse than other people. You are doing the same test so you get the most realistically possible fair comparison (bringing people into the studio to all do an art test at the same time is not realistically possible)
To the original point being made though, yes once you submit an art test you absolutely should get a response from the company letting you know they received it and reviewed it and the out come of that review. With a yes or no response at least, its a shame not everyone does that if you put in the effort of there art test. If they company can give you a critique, thats awesome but its not something they should be required to do, nor should it be something to expect.
They are a business and there job is to be making a video game. Not to critique your work. Come to Polycount and post your personal work up here if you want a critique.
Next you're gonna tell me that being forced to crunch non stop is good for the employee too because they:
A - Get twice the experience in half the time!
B - Get to enjoy the satisfaction of working really hard on something!
C - It's great exposure to show how hard working you are!
I don't see how you made such a wild leap to that conclusion. Nothing I said was even remotely close to anything you listed.
Yes I believe art tests are beneficial to applicants. As I said, not everyone has a fucking killer portfolio. There are lots of super talented people who wouldn't be where they are today if things were just based on there portfolio.
Portfolio work is easier to fake, you can take months or years to complete an environment. On an art test you cant. On personal work you can make whatever creative decisions you want, on an art test you are follow the same guidelines as everyone else. It will show if you are better than other people or not. Simple as that.
I got my job at Bungie based off my art test. My portfolio was ok at the time. If they based the job off just my folio I would have never gotten the job. I didn't have a rockstart folio.
I knew I could show them that I could do the tasks they set in front of me. I knew that if they gave me an art test I would knock it out of the park.
I knew where my skill level was, I wasn't wasting my time doing an art test way beyond my skill level.
If art tests are so fantastic, do you think every company should have them? Wouldn't that make unemployment fun. A minimum of 20 hours of work for every job application!
(yes, you gave some excellent reasons why art tests are good for the studio)
Apparently it's a new thing.
Hundreds of applicants and they only give tests out to those with decent portfolios. I'd imagine that's usually the case. I asked a large studio that I applied for, how many candidates were taking their test. It was 50+ and counting.
But doing a great art test definitely does not mean you will be hired. With such a large number of applicants there are also a large number of great tests. I mean I've done great art tests and didn't even get a reply.
It doesn't matter how good your art test is if you or the studio are not a good fit. An interview should come first. An art test should only be needed if they're undecided between several candidates later on.
But if your portfolio's not decent then you won't be getting an art test anyway.
At the place I interviewed at, 7 employees were also involved. It was a way to see how well the candidates fitted in. Most places don't work like that. It was nice to see a company put such value in it's staff. And it reflected that too.
Because they might reuse my work for their own characters. I learned that over the years and im not going to say where.
Would you ask a Lawyer to put in 80 hours for free on your case, only to decide you want to go with another firm because it wasn't up to your standards?
Would you ask a mechanic for 80 hours of free work, drive around town and decide you don't want to pay them for their labor?
We are professionals, please respect yourself and others, stop giving away your work for free.
Kinda defeats the purpose of doing an art test though eh peanut
Employers look at me with a smile.
Yes you are correct in that regard that art tests are time sinks that could pan out to be nothing. No denying that.
That does not change the fact that art tests are good for the applicant in the regard that it gives everyone competing for that job a more even slate. It gives you the ability to prove how talented you actually are and if you can do the job the company requires.
Your competing for a highly sought after creative job. Not every studio needs or requires art tests. If you are against the idea of them, there are plenty of places you can work at.
Art tests are not just about making pretty art. Art tests are what your job at that company will be.
An art test will show you can adhere to the budgets set by the company. It will show that you can produce the art style required by the company. It will show you can follow a given concept and replicate it to a desired level. It will show that you can complete something within a given deadline.
These are things that cannot be shown in a portfolio piece. In personal work, you set the budgets, you set the time frame, you choose the style, you choose what to change from the concept, you choose the scope of the project.
The best way to compare 2 applicants is have them do the same thing with the same guidelines.
Of course, don't pay them, it's still just an application process after all.
And sure, you're losing a month of unpaid work if you don't get the job, but it's a highly sought after creative position after all. You've gotta expect some sacrifices if you want to work in the game industry.
And think about all the good experience the applicant will get out of it!
Oh please stop this bullshit. It has nothing to do with not respecting yourself or others. It has nothing to do with giving your work away for free.
You are NEVER required to do an art test. You are NEVER required to give away your work for free.
YOU are applying for a company. YOU are deciding if you wish to take there art test. YOU are deciding if YOU feel doing a test that could lead no where is worth your time. YOU are choosing what to do with your time, not the company.
When someone asks you to do an art test, you know what you can say? You can say No. You don't have to do an art test for anyone, you don't have to work for free at all. If you respect yourself and don't want to waste your time then fucking don't. Dont do an art test for a company if you don't want to.
You can even tell a company that asks you to do an art test that you feel your portfolio and resume speaks enough for itself and they should be able to make there decision off that and an interview. People do that when applying here at ND all the time. I'm not saying it will work out, but again if you value your time and dont feel you should do an art test say so.
You can also tell a company that you feel you should be compensated for your time on doing an art test that could be otherwise spent on doing a portfolio piece. They most likely will say no, but then you know what? If you respect yourself and dont feel like you should do any work, art test or not for free then DONT!
NEVER do any work for free unless YOU have decided its something you want to do.
A company is not coming to you and asking you to take a test and do free work for them.
There are hundreds of companys that do not require an art test, there are tons of ways to make money doing 3D art that do not require an art test. You can sell 3d models online, you can create tutorial videos and sell those, you can make 3d prints of things and sell those. You can get a job at a studio that does not require art tests. You can make your own game.
Also I think you're being sarcastic in your post? But I'm not sure! LOL
I think art tests are alright, especially for newer artists. If you have a strong portfolio and some professional work in there maybe then an art test I think is less appropriate.
Haha ok thought so! Hard to tell on the internet sometimes. But ya you're right unpaid internships do exist!
It has everything to do with respecting yourself and others. When a candidate applies to a company with a well-suited portfolio and CV, and the company immediately responds with an art test, they are being disrespectful of the candidate's time. They'll have enough information there to make a well judged decision whether or not to proceed with an interview.
You listed a bunch of reasons why portfolio work won't suffice compared to an art test, but other than speed (which is flawed), those things should be evident in the portfolio of a strong candidate who has tailored his application to the company. As you say, there are many other studios able to make that decision without the need for an art test.
If an applicant's work isn't well-suited, but you think they might have something, then an art test would be appropriate. But having it as standard procedure is lazy and disrespectful.
You are making broad generalizations of all company's and art tests based off a select few you don't like or had issues with. You are complaining how company's disrespect applicants when in the majority of all cases that is untrue. So yes I feel that is bullshit.
The general practice of MOST studios is not to send out art tests to everyone who applies. Most people who apply never hear back from studios. I only know of 2 studios who legitimately give out an art test to everyone, and both those studios have there art test on there website before you even apply.
MOST studios still go through all applicants, weed out people who have no chance of getting a job by skimming there folio and only give out art tests to those people they feel COULD get a job there.
These broad generalizations that every studio just gives out art tests to anyone who submits a application is total bullshit.
I have probably applied to at least 30+ company's in my time doing 3d. I have only ever received 4 requests of me to do an art test. One of them I turned down because I felt my skill and folio was enough. Because I respect myself as a person/artist to say no and not just do an art test because its given to me. (They ended up flying me out for an interview)
Its not disrespectful of a company to give you an art test, its not required for you to do an art test given to you. Some places require you to take one to work there, but hey, guess what. You dont have to work there. You dont have to take there stupid test and spend your time on it.
Just because YOU find the idea of company's giving you an art test disrespectful does not mean everyone does. I have never felt disrespected being asked to take an art test. The ones I did, I was fully aware that it could lead to nothing and I was fine with that. I made that choice just like everyone else who does an art test. You dont like them, dont do them.
While I agree that art tests aren't the best way to approach potential employees, saying that someone who agrees to take one has no self respect is pretty insulting. Do I wish studios could judge an individual by his folio alone...of course! But I've been on both sides of the situation. I have been at companies where artists were hired who had great folios, did not take art tests, and did not work well within the company. An art test might have determined that ahead of time. Neither a folio nor an art test alone can really tell a company if an individual is a perfect fit but it helps to have both. What is disrespectful is when someone completes an art test and then never hears back from the studio. I think you are hitting a nerve because you are basically insulting game artists in a game art forum. Probably not the best place to call out game artists who have taken art tests.
As someone who has been in charge of being at the same time a Lead artists on a project, trying to manage time and people and asked to review CV´s and artwork in my *cough* "SPARE TIME" at work I will tell you this.
I would power through demo material fast. CV´s I would not even read unless the demo material was up to snuff or I saw potential in the first one or two images provided.
Where people had worked, what their responsibilities there were or how awesome of a person they might be did not even come into consideration unless the demo artwork peaked my interest in the first one or two images.
If it did, it got put to the side and got a second and more proper looking at.
Reply emails were NEVER sent out unless we were interested in the person as a possible employee.
It was not about disrespect, it was about time.
I had already wasted valuable time going over the material I got sent, and time is money.
Applicants do NOT deserve a response for each sent application.
You are not important enough for a company to give a flying fuck about unless they want more from you.
You are one of a thousand each month. If the company is not interested, you are not worth the minutes in money to them.
Harden up, get better, try again!
If you have not heard back in 3-4 weeks, don´t take it as a sign of insult.. take it as a sign that you need to improve your work.
That in it self is feedback.
I´m sorry if that sounded harsh, but that is just how things were when I was involved in the industry years back..
And given the massive increase in wanna-be/gonna-be gaming artists since then I can only imagine it was gotten worse.
Suck it up.. Improve your work.. try again..
and i'm not one with a lot of extra time.
true - it's a bummer to not hear back...but that's the nature of looking for work. and it's not unique to game art.
if you make an art test and don't hear back..o well. you still have a portfolio piece unless it was specifically stated that you couldn't share the work you made...which i've never seen.
if finishing an art test DOESN'T net you a potential art test...well..i guess you should already know why they didn't respond to you.
Extremely blunt, but I agree with this 100%.
It's a harsh reality, especially when you have to watch your friends struggle every day with empty inboxes and a head full of dreams.
A) Have you, or do you know anyone that has said no to doing an art test when requested, and still got the job?
A follow up can be good, but it can also be bad. If you do make a follow up, do it as politely as humanly possible, and only do so once.
A follow up request means someone has to search for your application, see the feedback on it or find who ever made the decision not to talk to you, find out why and then reply to you. At that point you have wasted multiple people´s valuable time and taken time away from application reviews.
If everyone sent follow up requests, it would simply end up that all of them would get ignored due to time constraints.
Which I would guess is the case for a lot of the larger companies that get a boatload of applications per month.
The odds that you will get any valuable feedback on your work on a test is slim to none.
The reviewer looks at it quickly and see´s if he likes it or not.
It will very rarely get analyzed in detail, and thus the feedback would most likely be a simple good/bad. Which incidentally you would already have gotten via a reply to your application or no.. If they think its good/ok/workable and they want to interview you, more than likely you will get feedback at said interview along with questions on why you did things the way you did.
I've no idea where you got this. I never mentioned all companies, and I never mentioned every applicant getting an art test. Don't put words in my mouth.
That's not what I said. It's about valuing your work and time under the circumstances.
Art tests under the right circumstances can be useful. My issue comes when recruiters waste peoples' time by giving very long tests to a large number of applicants at the start, when it could be dealt with more efficiently. And when they decide not to reply to them.
Btw this is coming from someone with in-house and freelance experience. And I've made a lot more than 30+ applications (unfortunately).
But to go back to the op's point. Dont give out tests if you dont have time to send a thank you note. Just because your company is too cheap to hire someone to do this work handing even an 8 hour test out and not spending 2 minutes to give even a simple reaction is devoid of class. Its the kind of thing I would expect of administrators who dont understand the effort involved in creating something. If you ask a pencil pusher to spend 8 hours doing your taxes for free you will get a howl of derision, but because artists are supposed to love their work they should be overjoyed at the possibility to use their skill for nothing.
Thats not really true.
Actually, the problem is.. That I can put everything in CV (because hey, it just some piece of document, with anything I can lie all the way), and portfolio. There is no telling how things in portfolio were done.
Tests, are done, to verify, that what are people telling is truth actually.
The day, when we can trust each on other on word given, will be great day. But that day is not today.
Yeah, this is exactly what happened to me. ^^
Everything was going fine until sent a finished art-test. Every question regarding to the art-test was fully answered.
I made this topic because it's simply strange to me and I wanted opinion from other professionalists from game-industry.
Although I am discouraged to making other art-tests also I have better idea how to proceed. Obviously "keeping going" is obvious but now I can better approach to future art-tests if there will be some.
I don't think it is possible to get money from an art-test (but sometimes maybe worth a try), but asking for makin' it AFTER preliminary skype interview should be a good thing to do.
This is also a good advise in my opinion. Although my first art test gave me nothing except some experience (cuz subject was completely uninteresting), my second one, after changing some thing is going to my portfolio soon.
Yes, that happens a lot with CVs and applications in all professions.
An art test doesn't mean a true representation. I could work more than I proclaim to. I could get a friend to come and help. I could spend time learning new skills that I didn't previously know. I could be very productive working alone at home but not in a studio. I could be working lots of shifts with no time to spare. You get the gist.
I was once offered a test in a field that I was not very experienced in. I'd exaggerated my skills, took the test, and learnt what I needed to know during the test. My test was 100x better than if I was doing it on the job. If I got the position, my plan was to heavily cram before I started. Did it give the recruiter a clear representation of my skills? Absolutely not.
People in all professions exaggerate their applications, and only paint themselves in the best light. The only way to really know is by them being on the job. Which is what probation periods are for.
So awhile back when still unemployed i got an interview with a pretty well known studio, went great, got a rigging test few days later, i had a week to complete it. I felt i did pretty well, had to work it around freelance stuff so some things where rushed..but i ended up with another interview a couple days after submitting it. Personally when i get an interview after a test i think shit is going well. That was 9 months ago and i never heard back(obv i gave in after 2 weeks) but 2 long ass interviews and a test that cut into paid work and not even a response after that second interview... I don't expect anything after the first interview if they are not interested, but after 3 stages a 'Thank you for your time but unfortunately.. ' email would have been appreciated. Anyway bullet dodged from what i've heard from people i work with now
Oh and funny enough one of my other friends who is an enviro artist had the exact same shit from these guys.
Unpaid internships are not a common practice in this industry like others. The idea of unpaid interns who go into an office and only get coffee for there boss is not something that happens in this industry.
All the internships I know of pay at least minimum wage. Blizzard, Insomniac, SoE blah blah blah. Sure there might be a few small companies that try and sucker you into that, but fuck that. Those internships at those companys are not worth it. Never make artwork for a company that stands to profit off it and not be compensated for your time.
Only being able to judge someone by bringing them on for a probation period is again 100% unrealistic.
You eliminate EVERYONE who doesn't live within driving distance of your studio. Relocation is crazy expensive. The studio is not going to drop a few grand on each person they want to "try out" for a while. Nor is the applicant going to spend thousands of dollars to move cross country for a job that might not pan out. That is even more insulting than doing an art test and not hearing back from it.
You also eliminate 75% of everyone who applies. You can only hire people who seem to have the absolute best portfolio. Hiring people is expensive. Even if its just probation (which is not a real thing. they are hired on contract and must agree to terms that you still have to pay them) So you are not going to waste your time and money on people who don't have the most amazing portfolio.
And there are tons of people with ok portfolios but are crazy talented. I have seen the art tests here at ND of people who fucking KILLED it but have just ok folios. They would never have a chance to prove themselves. Why would a company try out someone who has an ok portfolio? That would be a huge waste of money.
Time is money and company's want to to make money. If they don't make money, they cant make there next game.
*Is waiting for the next elephant in the room; spouses gone wild who hire inside the family to a studio, even if they live in a country on the other side of the world*.
It almost sounds like this industry could really use a Union to give some weight to the worker's needs. Yikes. We haven't had a significant genetic change in 10,000 years people, all those human imperfections of ignorance and lack of empathy for others that have led to all the suffering and using of others in history we are still suitable to. The employee hiring you may have never once considered what it is like to have a full time job and family while doing an art test. This is why young people scare me, we are all born with zero in our heads.
Another way to look at it is that no comment or a very delayed comment says a lot about the company you applied to, so that's something positive. What is the time you spend on an average art test anyhow? Anyone know?
Also to the guy who wants a union, I have seen unions become self serving businesses that damage their members and charge a fee on top so I wouldn't go there if I was you.
Sorry I am in a 'sweeping generalization' mood atm.