Are 3D character artists less in demand than environment artists?
polycounter lvl 4
When you go to Artstation it's like... characters everywhere. But I suspect this is a false impression created by the fact that characters are just more impressive. More people have emotional reaction when looking at a character than when looking at a piece of environment. So characters get likes, characters get promoted to the front page. But I'd argue it takes more time to learn how to create characters (anatomy etc.) than to create environment, so it's very implausible that there are more character artists than environment artists. Character artist can create some environment or props when needed, but environment artist without knowledge of anatomy would be absolutely clueless at creating a character.
Therefore there should be more environment artists as it's easier and the demand for character artists should be higher. Is my conclusion true?
Replies
With Artstation well, its very difficult to estimate exactly which artwork of a applicant swayed a hiring decision if it actually did. There are several other factors involved in actually employing artists in studios.
in general the ratio does skew towards environment artists at most studios, most projects I have worked on have like 7-12 environment artists and 3-4 character artists. but like neox said, the market is changing as GaaS becomes more the standard, with constant need for character dlc and cosmetics.
environments are not easier than characters, its like apples and oranges. environment artists sometimes need to be able to work on an entire level for years, managing thousands of assets, understand things like structure, composition, lighting and huge technical limitations. That alone is extremely challenging. I would say the biggest difference in focus of environment vs character artists is wide vs deep.
there is no "easier" option for game industry jobs really, even positions like QA (tester) has it's own mental hurdles and challenges if you want to excel
Like I've been able to get freelance character work, but my applications in studio don't always seem to process as quickly and there's rarely if ever any feedback to a rejection. Some jobs I applied to simply disappeared the next day and reappeared a week later.
I do get feedback here on polycount and at networking events so I keep improving and adding to the portfolio allowing me to reapply relatively soon. The quality of ones work is the most controllable factor so it certainly is important to focus on that.
When I mentioned additional variables that influence the hiring process I was thinking about how significant it is having prior in studio work experience and published game titles to getting hired if you're competing with other artists that have considerably more industry experience in a competitive market.
So think hundreds of applications to 1 opening, and not every studio having the same budget to hire top tier, or the scope of their projects not requiring that level of quality or experience.
Like I did notice that the more competitive the market the idea of being top tier seems to require a few more aspects to push ones application over the finish line than just the quality of their artwork.
Many artists are focusing on building their brand and developing more exclusive audiences which is a good trend I think.
Out of curiosity, what overlaps are you thinking of between character art and environment art?
There are definitely a lot of factors involved in hiring decisions, the portfolio is just one step in the consideration process. In my experience I'd say it's rarely one specific piece of artwork that impacts the process, but rather the whole portfolio that shows an appreciation and passion for the craft, understanding of the processes involved in the specific work that the studio does and artwork that shows that the artist knows what good looks like, which means having a style that is modern and fresh, and not outdated and also isn't a blatant copy of what everyone else is doing, showing some kind of artistic identity.
In that sense you may need to get a character artist into the environment team for this responsibility working alongside them for that task.
Depends on the studio size, project work and resources they have to work with.
As for portfolio's I personally try to look for the best in even the worst piece, rather than declaring the artist as a bad artist because of what I feel is his worst piece. Not that I don't understand what constitutes bad art, I'm more inclined to want to know the person behind the art.
Like I love cool3Dworld which has incredibly horrifying art, or the work of David O Reilly.
If I were to judge them by their worst pieces (not next gen, didn't use PBR, anatomy sucks, doesn't use artstation) without understanding where they're coming from, they would likely never be hired anywhere, and we'd miss out on working with some really great personalities that could impact a studio in ways most artists that go by the book likely won't be able to.
But of course it follows that for a job at a studio (especially that 1st job) you should meet their requirements to the best of your ability. And in most AAA you are likely only supposed to focus on the task your assigned. That said its a competitive market so it certainly isn't kind to everyone, I tend to feel that the time is money adage does leave a lot of potential by the wayside.
Of course studios do value how good you are, but you never really stop learning and a lot of the work is collaborative. This is why there is such a stark difference between what's in a portfolio prior to joining a studio and after joining it.
Since you're not making the whole game single handed, you'd won't likely get your hands on game assets to take home and present like you did personal art.
In this case your game credit matters more, and when you leave to join elsewhere that becomes very relevant. And once armed with that you'd be competing with fresh graduates, so does their top tier work, top your game credit and industry experience in every case?
There does seem to be a difference between top tier artwork and top tier applicant, and that is something that isn't stated enough I feel especially in cases where they are competing for the same roles.
Like in many other industries, there is such a thing as over qualified, and those candidates likely have to consider taking a step down to avail of opportunities.
I'm certain it applies here also. Add to that factors specific to studios and a lot of the hiring process can be considerably subjective.
What I find lacking is transparency, with the total onus of a rejection (rather being ghosted) usually being placed on the applicant and their work, which is one major reason why 95% of my graduating class gave up (and a few even considered suicide)
I do agree that it is of course important to strive for the best in yourself as an artist since that's the one thing the applicant can usually control fully, perhaps not everyone is cut out for the struggle and sacrifice even if it very nearly cost them their life.
Probably just the doctor in me caring about the humanity behind applications.
Honestly anyone could see that, but so many didn't want to and just kept going burning themselves out.
Personally I've always felt it best to compare with yourself and improve gradually, and being financially secure is a given, but for many artists comparing with other artists is to them the best way to learn and improve but it does hit ones self confidence pretty severely for some.
But more than this, its the impression that the industry gives them that pushes them over the edge. Its really just PR and I understand why companies do it, though sometimes I'm not entirely sure if its necessary if there is a lot of demand already coming their way.
Like are they attempting to get the best talent from the graduate pool or tempting people with jobs to leave their companies? (That is actually considered impolite in my home country where you usually stay with a company for life to grow with it as family)
The worst of this I've seen is at student contests in cities where there are many game dev schools providing ample cannon fodder to exploit.
What makes it more challenging is that the ones that do get in and experience the reality can't say anything publicly so basically end up perpetuating the illusion.
Not so say that every company is like this, but I've always felt there is a better way for both artists and companies to work together, maintain reasonably high standards in hiring and be fair to candidates with potential.
Then it becomes a matter of selecting the best person, not just the best character or environment artist number so and so for the job followed by layoff after layoff.
What you have to remember is that hiring is never black or white. There's no flowchart that dictates what portion of a candidates background and application weighs the most. It completely depends on what the studio and the project needs at the point of hiring and whether that necessitates an experienced individual or not. The portfolio is of course the easiest way to assess a candidate's suitability for a role but what makes a portfolio "good" isn't just how shiny it is but also showing that you are keeping the big picture in mind. Portfolios from recent graduates can often look very naive and run-of-the-mill, which for a junior role may be perfectly fine. Whereas a more experienced candidate will have a better understanding of what's important to make a character or environment visually pleasing whilst showing that the artist took both time and technical restraints into consideration, which is what you want from a more senior artist.
Several simply have shots from games worked on with the usual this was a collaborative effort, i worked on so and so.
Like im certain that the more competant recruiters do go into the details, but is ones level of seniority only judged on ones portfolio of work in this case or work experience?
Is it a combination of the two that makes someone top tier?
Do candidates get sidelined because they dont have game credits or dont know someone and is it always the case that having top tier work makes both of these aspects irrelevant in everycase, because i certainly havent see that happening.
I know a few senior aritsts that have work that does not seem up to the standard of the rest of their work on their portfolios.
Using the you're only as good as your worst artwork logic should a company reject them instantly? Or are they allowed some leeway because of their seniority and work experience.
If were willing to see the best in them why not junior artists?
Well ideally that is how recruitment ought to occur but several companies dont even give out arttests to assess candidates forget feedback.
Games dont always turn out the way theyre expected, given the most recent releases from several top studios, which makes me wonder if that was because of mismanagement or having a studio run by juniors.
All i mean is that it isnt fair to put everything on the art and portfolio when hiring, by ignoring the person behind the art and their experiences you lose out on a lot of potential which is something I feel needs changing.
At one point tho it is very likely more word of mouth and portfolio followed by that. But if you do not fit the team, neither a great portfolio, nor who you know will help. If the people onsite don't feel you are a fit, all that doesnt matter. But at that level, there will be other teams where it works out.
The Senior examples you gave are cases where the NDA of your employer is very strict. But usually those guys have public and non public portfolios. Everyone in the Industry knows how it works and it is usually not just the screenshots posted to the public.
I've felt that getting a chance to interview instead of being ghosted would give the recruiter a more complete picture, but since it may not come to that how would they know if I'd be a good fit?
Its why I prefer to actually meet recruiters as networking events so there's the actual human element involved.
I just feel that many candidates get eliminated way too soon, every potential employee ought to be seen as an investment for their potential regardless of their seniority, that is what good companies do.
Are most rejections/ghosting owing to a persons portfolio and ability, or is the reason by comparison with other applicants alone?
Also most companies have probationary periods where the good fit aspect becomes becomes more clear to the entire team in the actual studio environment.
And in the case of seniors I'm certain that game's worked on is what secures an interview and a recruiter attempting to poach you from your current workplace.
I find art tests to be the best way to cut through that disparity, obviously for a senior they do get considerable leeway in that matter too.
But as you said things can work out where you are a good fit.
What I find missing in the case of people not at the front of the line and not being approached by recruiters because of lack of rockstar status, is involving them to know if they would be a good fit rather than dismissing them on assumptions with the standard rejection letter with magically disappears the moment you have someone on the inside.
That aspect makes me wonder on the actual significance of ones portfolio. (shouldn't stop an artist from bettering themselves for their sake mind you)
I just don't really get the flat advice of "the reason you're not getting work is because you're not as good as Rafael Grasseti" especially if you're just starting out, since from everything I have seen, I know that isn't true.
Improving your work certainly improves your chances of getting hired, but each company has different requirements which do seem considerably fluid in their interpretation.
Like I understand the logic behind it, its a kind of positive encouragement but its totally unrealistic considering there are so many other factors involved in the hiring process.
If great quality is all that's expected, maybe liquidate a north american studio of every single artist and fill it with those hotshots from china working in outsourcing factories that kill it on artstation posting top tier work every week.
I'm sure the visa's for these people will likely fall out of the sky because of how good they are, and companies would love to pay them top wages rather than go with what they are being paid right now though their outsourcing firms.
This also explains the significant pay disparity between artists that work for outsourcing companies who are likely toptier but could never dream of commanding any price they want owing to factors out of their control. Maybe they can as freelancers, hence my wanting more clarification on the matter of top tier art on the overall market.
Maybe we as artists are digging ourselves into a deeper hole, assuming that companies know exactly what they want, being totally in sync with the PR released to the public and the artist has only himself to blame in every single case?
I do understand that its the way the market is, but doesn't really have to be that way I feel.
There are a few companies who have done away with junior/senior levels internally because of the way they work, that's a good step forward I feel.
I never said you have to be at raf grassettis level to get a job or have a hope of getting a job, I said thats what top tier talent looks like, and the closer you can get your skills to that level the easier things become. A lot of artists work hits the "ok" bar of quality and they struggle while not focusing on improving their key skillset very far, sometimes it's because they havent developed the overall eye for what looks good or figured out how to get their work to the next level by focusing on things like faces looking amazing and balance of details for character artists, or proper composition and scene layout for environment artists etc
as for being judged on your weakest piece, yea that's just a fact of life. With so many applicant portfolios to review, the multiple people in the chain looking through it all dont have time to play guessing games as to why it sucks or what was going on with the artist behind the scenes. If it's bad enough to not hit the expected level of quality, and the artist doesn't have the self awareness to remove it from their portfolio, that's a big red flag that shows they haven't fully developed the ability to discern what looks pleasing to the eye, and what doesn't. The ammount of times I have seen applicants with really nice work in their portfolio and then 1-2 meh pieces, as the discussion about that artists between descision makers ends its usually "yea thats cool, but those couple pieces...eh add them to the maybe pile" and the maybe pile just never gets looked through again. The "fuck yea! we gotta get this person in for an interview, their work is amazing" pile is what you want to be in.
The lack of feedback from game studios to applicants is usually just based on the fact that there is 2-3 people managing the hiring process and they just don't have the time for individual feedback. If every applicant takes an hour to go through their resume, look at their portfolio, forward it to the required leads/decision makers, get that feedback etc etc there just isn't time to write an email or message back to everyone saying you didn't make it or this portfolio piece is what made us say no to the applicant etc. If you are getting ghosted or not hearing replies to your applications, it means people are consistently passing on you. I would say a studio can filter through that process with 3-5 applicants a day who's portfolio is good enough to not be an immediate pass from HR/producers and even get to be reviewed by the art team. but every day there is 10-100 applicants depending on the studio.
The biggest thing you can do to fix that is drastically change what you are applying with, in terms of subject matter, relevance to the studio and quality. re-applying with 1 new piece but still having the same old work in the portfolio isn't going to do much to save the day unfortunately. Especially if you haven't taken out the older work that's not up to industry quality, its a reminder of that artist you passed on before "oh yea, its the guy with the jank ass inspector gadget" or "oh yea its that one with that cartoon mario scene" and then it's usually a hard pass, sometimes before even seeing the new work.
yes different studios have different budgets and that impacts the talent they can get, but they always want to get the best they can for their budget. like an indie studio trying to get a really great senior artist without making them an insane offer in terms of salary just isn't gonna happen usually, so they move on to the next best, then the next, unitl they get someone whos great but fits their budget. they are not just gonna be like "well this person looks like the could be promising and we might be able to train them up, lets give them a shot and hope for the best". They are looking to hire people that clearly can give them the results they want with minimal hand holding or supervision.
long story short, your portfolio needs to remove as many unanswered questions for the job/studio you are applying to. Companies dont sit there philosophically thinking about whats going on with potential employees lives or what they might be able to bring to the table if they dig deeper. There just isn't time for that, or why should they? If the value proposition isn't clear from the get go, why bother proceeding?
Why would Blizzard waste time on going deeper with an artist applying with a photoreal portfolio, even if it is badass, if the project they are hiring for is their usual stylized look? it's just unanwsered questions right off the bat as if that artist is even comfortable doing stylized work or has that ability. expecting blizzard to reach out with an email asking that basic question when the portfolio answer it is ridiculous. they just move on to the next actually relevant applicant.
A prime example is with that fake left4dead trailer that just came out. It looked amazing and was shared around our studio slack like crazy. A couple weeks later, it came out that is was actually done by a group of students at one of the art schools here in montreal. This was a bit of a shock, and during the career fair at that school, our studio quickly snapped up a couple of the artists from that. they blew away the expected level of quality right out the gate, exceeded expectations of what a student/junior and had a great portfolios. they over delivered and in turn were instantly snapped up and hired.
https://youtu.be/U45KPDpAuHE
^That is a great example of a "no brainer" hire when it comes to student work, and a good indication of the level of competition out there.the biggest thing is everyone thought it was industry work, it didn't look like your typical "student/junior" level output. If I held that up next to any current gen game it would match the quality level or exceed it in some cases.
of course having shipped titles can help you out, but we have hard passed on plenty of artists with shipped titles because their portfolios sucked or were not clear in what they actually could bring to the table in terms of skills and ability. Your portfolio is hands down the most important part of the puzzle, atleast 80% of it I would say. Having a fancy resume full of shipped titles can sometimes "trick" HR/Producers, but that all falls apart the second an artist or lead reviews the applicants portfolio, if that sucks upon first glance, it's a pass. You could have God of War on your resume but if all you did was clean up collision bugs and your portfolio that doesn't demonstrate a high level art skillset, it doesn't really do shit for you.
Seeing as portfolio quality is 80-90% of the equation, and also the one thing you have total control over, you should be focusing all your energy on that.
Going forward would it then be better then to release collaborative cinematic work like the trailer and have it go viral to get the attention of a studio?
What about candidates that haven't made a full cinematic but do demonstrate aspects of the pipeline that are relevant to what the studio is looking for.
Would they need to make a group cinematic with other rejected candidates to cross the gate?
I understand not having enough man power or time to give feedback, but I wonder if that is something that should change.
Like if a discussion is actually underway perhaps it may be possible to pass along the results to the candidate rather than ghost them and let them figure things out on their own.
Its fair to say that the applicant should know better given the market and be able to guess what the studio is working on and the quality they expect.
But not every studio is clear about what exactly they want, like with regards to the studio you are currently at, after now knowing who has been hired I have a better idea at what is being worked on in terms of quality (well at least I think I do) but otherwise I can only assume by looking at previous games (totally different in style and aesthetic from the cinematic) and any seniors at the company which shows a wide variety of skill sets and experience levels.
The advertisement itself is quite general in whats expected from candidates and I've seen this to be the case with many studios. Like the impression I get is that the company is looking for someone that's capable in the pipeline and has an understanding of the programs.
This bit for instance,
"Undertake a wide variety of projects and challenges related to game characters that will vary in scope, art-style, fidelity, game engine and genre"
doesn't tell me if a particular style is preferred over others, only that variety is expected.
What I mean is that if a candidate is expected to figure out what a studio wants from this, there's going to be a lot of subjectivity and speculation in the hiring process.
There's also the requirement of a shipped game title but this seems flexible.
To remedy this I connect through linkedin with recent hires and employees or at times I have made studio visits if a studio allows this, to meet with artists directly and get more insight on the work they're actually doing to understand what my responsibilities will be when I'm actually working.
NDA's do make that difficult, though some studios do have waivers you can sign.
I just feel that maybe its important to see past the art when it comes to a long term potential and the impact a candidate would have on the overall development of a studio and its personnel, maybe its just not something that happens in the game industry where candidates are hired for a task and then usually left to fend for themselves if a company folds.
I do find freelance to be more forgiving atleast in my experience.
Like this cutthroat approach does ship titles, but I'm still not certain if this is the best thing for the industry going forward since we end up looking for the worst in people simply to arrive at who's good through eliminating others.
I'm certain not every studio works this way. I could never personally judge a candidate so mercilessly simply based on their work, unless it was an art-test that was the same for all of them.
That I feel provides the best insight to knowing what a candidate can do within set guidelines.
to be honest, no reply IS them saying "your portfolio isnt up to par or doesnt match what we are looking for, work on your stuf and re-apply with some new hotness". the sooner you can get over that and just move on the happier you will be. I stopped caring if companies I applied to didn't get back to me LONG before i got my first job. if anything it just made me work harder.
if you apply to a company and they don't reply, and THATS the thing that makes you not want to work there, then you never wanted to work there really badly in the first place. if you don't re-apply to an awesome studio simply because they never replied to you, then that's on you for eliminating future potential job opportunities.
If I applied to Sony Santa monica or Naughty Dog, or Bungie etc and never heard back I wouldn't be shocked or butthurt, I would just move on or make some portfolio work that is more relevant to their studio, delete some outdated work from my portfolio, rinse and repeat until i got a reply.
i think the 2 biggest things I am seeing here is people are taking the rejection & radio silence personally and are also not really clear on how a value proposition/exchange works. It's not really the studios fault if your portfolio doesn't clearly demonstrate the skills for the position they are looking to fill. If I apply for a position at a top tier studio and even with all my experience and my current portfolio, if it's not up to their standards then that's 100% on me, not their problem. I just take the L and then adjust my plan accordingly, either by moving on or doubling down. dwelling doesn't ever accomplish anything.
an artist simply applying to a studio costs the studio time and money to sort through applications, and if there isn't a clear value to the studio to invest more than a cursory glance at your work then there is no point in devoting any more time and $$ towards that potential applicant if it's clear they won't get any value in return. that's just basic business, it's not them "not giving a shit about people". Most studios I have worked at really care about their employees and internal culture quite a bit. But I wouldn't expect a studio I simply apply to care much about me if they were not interested in hiring me. As their level of interest goes up, so does their investment in time/resources in you. and you almost always grab their interest and attention with.....your portfolio
also, those automated rejection replys just opens a door for a lot more time wasting communication. A lot more applicants than you think would take that opening to reply to that rejection email asking for feedback, why they didn't make the cut, simply saying fuck you for rejecting them (its happened before), which makes HR's life harder and sucks up more valuable time.
the cinematic/group project was just one way of getting attention to their work. I wouldn't look at it as this is the new way or something that has to be done, its just one thing that happened to work well, they also had nice work in their portfolio from their own projects. So if the cinematic grabbed peoples attention, the deeper dive into the rest of their portfolio kept it. There is no "one way" or secret method that is going to get you in the door. it's the overall impression of your work and portfolio as a whole.
The most important things about that specific example are not the fact that it was a cinematic, or group project/collab.
It was this:
-The overall quality was super high, hitting a AAA benchmark
- Subject matter was super interesting and well thought out
- the execution on all the elements from environment to lighting, characters to camera work was consistent across the board.
- It was a realtime cinematic in ue4 which showed technical knowledge of realtime specifications and game engine workflows.
all of those factors could apply to solo projects and portfolio work. Quality, consistency across your whole portfolio, and relevancy to the studio you are applying to are super important.
I find the best artists keep going for their passion, but a ruthless comparative approach is going to lose people and potential.
Its one of the reasons why the industry has such high turn over and everyone seems constantly on edge.
Probably just a downside of a capitalist unregulated free market.
And it is the most valuable, which the rat race seems to forget.
I still think that the overall impression of the person should matter more in the long term and the only way I know to gauge that is through an interview and actually taking the time to get to know people.
I totally understand if its not feasible to interview everyone given the volume but I do agree with Alex that something should change as far as feedback is concerned. That app does sound like a great idea and ought to adopted universally.
For my part I cannot justify ghosting anyone, regardless of how subjectively bad their work may be. It may be realistic given the way things are done in the industry here, but it simply isn't polite and only perpetuates apathy and devalues people.
Oh and by the way there is no excuse what so ever to not notify those people you had for interviews. But yeah, even that isn't always a thing.
we have no HR department, if we answer, it's usually artists or a project manager answering, and there are clearly more valuable things to do than answering every single application.
As said, it was our goal, but the reality doesnt make it possible anymore.
Ever since I started making the polygon academy videos, more and more people hit me up every day asking for advice, portfolio reviews, referrals etc. like 5-15 a day sometimes. I fucking LOVE my subscribers and audience and try to at least reply to every single one as much as I can, but even now some slip through the cracks. sometimes simply because I am getting on the metro while reading their email and I lose signal on my phone, and have shit to do when I get home and forget to reply. To be honest, if I answered every question or portfolio review request I would take me 4-8 hours a day to get through it all. And that's just now, what happens in 2 years when it's grown even bigger?! at some point I simply won't have the time to get back to everyone, and it's not because I don't care or am a rude person (hopefully not :P ) , it's simply because there are not enough hours in the day and I don't have the resources.
@alex and Nikhil - I think one of the things you guys are getting wrong is interpreting the fact that you are simply applying to a studio as being in a conversation with them. You are attempting to START a conversation but it takes 2 parties to actually have one. If they have no interest in having a conversation with you based on what you are coming at them with, that's on you, not them. I don't say this to be mean at all or anything but more to hopefully help you re-frame your view on the matter.
Now, ghosting once a conversation has already been established is entirely a different matter. Yea if you are emailing back and forth with HR and they suddenly go radio silence, that's shitty behavior. even worse if the applicant has been brought in for an interview is waiting to hear back.
But simply applying take very little effort on your part. your artstation is already a current portfolio and should be up to date in general, and a cover letter takes what....10 mins to write? 2 mins to copy paste your link and general application into their form etc. so lets say 15-20 mins max is what you should be spending applying to a job. That's a bare minimum for applying for any job in ANY field. It would literally take me more time driving down to wal-mart or McDonalds to drop off a resume in person, and I wouldn't expect to hear back from them unless they were interested, and definitely wouldn't expect them to call me up to thank me for dropping off a resume.
Thinking the company doesn't care about people because they don't reply to every external application is a really bad way of looking at things. I would much rather HR spend 99% of their time focused internally making peoples lives better who actually work for the company. Approving little Bobbys vacation requests, organizing company BBQs and events to build a better internal culture, managing everyone's health benefits and 401k plans etc.
This is all stuff you guys don't see and have no context for, simply because you haven't worked in a studio yet. You guys seem to have a super jaded view on game studios and companies in general, without ever having worked for one as far as I know, I could be wrong. Basing your entire view on the industry off of what you read on kotaku and IGN is a great way to have a horribly skewed perspective right out the gate.
12 years and 5+ studios I have worked at, I think I had only one bad period of about 3 months of stress and insane crunch and that was due to it being a smaller studio and the company collapsing due to horrible mismanagement and general lack of business experience. All my experiences at the large corporations you guys seem to hate on have been awesome so far. Always paid on time, great benefits usually and I definitely make a decent salary that allows me to live a pretty great lifestyle. Even as a junior artist I was payed a lot more than the minimum wage for the same 40 hours a week i would have been spending a some retail or service job I hated.
at the end of the day, you can sit there and fume and dwell on all the companies or people who seemingly wronged you while having zero context for whats going on in their own lives and day to day, or you can focus on the things you can control, like your own output, portfolio quality and what you bring to the table.
To be sidelined for reasons that aren't clear (especially if we're ghosted) isn't doing anyone any favors.
Its like the adage "he's not good for me, but he may be great for someone I know, so let me see what I can do for him."
In this light you put others before yourself. Probably not a very western thing given the individualised mindset
If that changes there will be a lot more in the way of a more organised process to hiring in general across the board.
But that will only happen once companies actually value people, not just the ones working for them.
I'm glad many people think that their dream jobs are giving them everything their looking for but simple numbers will tell you that considering the return you're receiving for your efforts, it really isn't that good. (especially compared to the IT sector.)
This is speaking strictly from a business perspective given the financial turnover compared to employee retention and job market.
Like more base pay going forward, still remarkably higher.
But then again you could keep seeing it as "life is great for me for the most part, atleast I didn't have to deal with how things went for the poor sods at Tell Tale."
I'm pretty sure those artists were top tier, didn't seem to do them any favors.
Even the ones that got sexually assaulted at Riot and can't speak out due to forced arbitration agreements.
I wonder how many companies made them offers simply for the sake of their humanity.
Reminds me of this one (of many) incidents) that happened in Toronto when Arc Animation shut down.
Hundreds of people got laid off and every company in the area jumped at the chance to hire talent (for the free PR too)
Jobs that didn't exist magically opened up. And a few juniors on contract were tossed out to make room for top tier talent.
One of these companies was Legend 3D, which ran on government grants exactly like Arc Animation.
In a year following this fiasco, they shifted their entire operation to India and laid everyone off.
And the government that gave them the grant under the table lost the elections.
Like I hope they'll get something especially the ones that are top tier, they clearly deserve it because how great they are.
The rest can go back to their minimum wage jobs or live on unemployment as they become top tier.
Its all cool I suppose! (they're still unemployed though)
I'd recommend following https://www.linkedin.com/in/vishnepolsky/detail/recent-activity/posts/ his advice is more holistic than other motivational speakers I've found. Puts humanity first.