Art tests for 3d character artists jobs
polycounter lvl 4
I am curious what these art tests are consists of ?
I contacted a lot of companies to get an art test to see how it goes but they said it doesn't work like that, that's why i wanted to ask you guys here because probably some of you work already and passed through this process.
I contacted a lot of companies to get an art test to see how it goes but they said it doesn't work like that, that's why i wanted to ask you guys here because probably some of you work already and passed through this process.
Replies
In my experience, art tests are given more arbitrarily, or usually part of policy. There can be an incredible sense of disconnect between HR administering the test and the artists reviewing it simply because of how the corporate structure operates.
Like EA gives art tests simply because, every applicant picked gets one. The quality bar is also very fluid, more dependent on what they need at the time and how desperate they are then how good you might be. There is no standard or bar that they set, or if there is its something that can change at any moment.
There is a lot of disparity among applicants and the art test in this case really focused on what you could deliver in the stipulated time.
(In my case the position disappeared so it was 3 months of waiting for nothing)
For a character art test, atleast the one I did had a head model, I believe they have a full model (quite simple) for their cartoon games.
They give you a week to get as far as you can with the concept. If you search google for EA Art test you'll see them and some of the applicants that received them.
All in all, I wouldn't worry too much about art tests, do try to get to know people higher up in the industry since their referral is usually what gets you through the red tape and sycophancy.
As an artist keep pushing your brand for yourself.
And be very aware of the market you're applying in. Might be an easier time in a place that is less competitive.
Also art tests aren't usually paid (whole thread about that) so be vary of that when you take up one.
Sadly most people here are far too desperate to get into a AAA company so very easy to take advantage of their naivety.
For something like what they have in their sports games, a head is all they need, asking for a full body, simulated clothing upto game ready may be possible, but I personally won't do it unless I'm paid double. (to account for undue stress, though lol they don't pay anything.)
In studio for something like this, you're expected to iterate of course, but the total time is a month to 2 months, then testing follow by more iterations and then the asset is called final.
Like in my current job (3rd party QA) that I do to supplement freelance, we've had models that are 6 months old going back for iteration, so not sure if they are finished if ever.
But for art tests, no way would I kill myself to do a full realistic character to the quality I have in my portfolio in a week
And besides its just not worth it. I can't understand what they would gauge from such an exercise since you cannot under labor laws be forced to work this way in studio (unless you're in some third world country/ are an idiot)
For that matter I doubt even if the test for me had worked, highly unlikely I'd be put on faces right away, likely to do basic retopo and some touch up working at 1/10th the speed of the art test because of how the pipeline works.
Its the main reason why I don't understand why juniors starting out need to have senior level portfolios if they're not going to be paid senior level or given the responsibility to justify it.
And when you see the actual portoflios of people that have "made it" there is so much disparty in that gold standard it makes no sense.
So no sense in beating ourselves about it.
In many ways it really comes down to studio management. Even with top tier artists end product can be shit, Mass effect andromeda's student quality comes to mind.
An unpaid art test is usually a total waste of time, unless you were looking to demonstrate specific skills like knowledge of engineering principles to make Horizon Zero Dawn's mecha dinosaurs.
I also don't see anyone doing 10-20 characters to make the jump. This isn't muscle training. Sure you start getting faster, but just pumping out a mass of assets doesn't mean you are improving. Those who I saw making the biggest improvement usually have it happen with a single and slowly approached asset where they focus on learning. Afterwards you can start focusing on speed, but speed is usually a thing that comes only once you really start understanding what you are doing. Running a thousand miles in the wrong direction doesn't mean that you will reach your goal. You might gain stamina, but if you miss your mark its pointless.
Art tests are usually very different from place to place and what they want to see. For characters its often about doing a bust, but if you are meant to do mainly hard surface or clothing it might be doing an asset from those. Its also roughly a week or 2. Still it might end up being timed. You will find a lot of thread regarding this topic on polycount.
An honest piece of advice - if the time is too short you will probably not be ready to work at the place. Which isn't a bad thing, it just means someone needs more experience.
I'm sure certain companies that genuinely require it do administer it fairly, but for the larger corporations is just mindless protocol seeing as literally the art test says, "its okay if you don't finish, we just want to see how far you go."
Like its difficult to know whether they are actually serious about it themselves.
About the 10-20 characters, every character done definitely improves your hand eye coordination and observational skills, but is all that properly assessed through an art test?
And what is the potential hire actually meant to do in the studio, if he's really good at heads, will they take work from a senior and give it to him?
I was literally asked at an interview if I would like to do boring work, quite an unconventional approach.
Then again a bunch of my classmates were tossed right into the action. Nothing creative in the sense that the kind of feedback they received prior to hiring they'd assumed they would be doing something more talented.
This was like making a sandwich at subway, so what need was them to be top tier? Not like the company was evil, they just don't do that sort of work though from a marketing perspective they need to act like they do, though I'm still not entirely sure why that is or if it actually makes any meaningful difference to their bottom line.
What I find interesting is that when it comes to portfolio's the sing along here is more from the perspective of the movie "Greatest story ever told." like every junior artist needs to become some kind of artistic genius because that's what is truly valued by companies.
And when I look over hires I just can't see that, like yes they know the fundamentals, but there are other factors that have more to do with who they know and how the business is run. Its corporate politics not art.
When you actually look at properly it seems to be more like the movie Caddyshack.
But yes, proper practise makes you faster and better. The actual working speed vets have goes beyond what people can imagine, but it is completely secondary to the skill level needed to get the job. Usually you reach the necessary speed level automatically once you develop the eye for art because the second one takes far longer to train. That's also why I am saying, people shouldn't worry if they can't deal with the speed required by the art test because that is probably a sign that they wouldn't have the skill level required anyway. Once you are good enough to finish the test properly on time you most probably are also once of the candidates who will make it to the next round and actually not be overwhelmed by the job itself.
Whereas if somebody just has one lousy workflow they know and aren't quick on picking up new ones, then you gotta sit there and walk them through step by step.
Things like efficient modelling, proper uv-layouts, some quality of life approaches,... are things that determine speed and you pick them up over time. Sometimes just using tools in a different way. Once somebody shows them to you, you basically understand them. Some of the technical stuff that gets more complicated might need some effort, but over time you learn it as well. Thinking that the image in your mind is already good enough for professional standards is probably already half the reason beginners struggle. Art isn't as simple even if it looks that way. From very stylized to hyper realistic there is a shit ton of stuff beginners simply don't see. They think they do until you explain some basics to them and suddenly a completely new layer that has been infront of them the whole time gets exposed. This is why I go for professional concepts and solid references as basis for my art more and more instead of trusting myself. Not having the eye for quality is a far bigger issue than not knowing a tool or a technique.
@Alex Javor
You assume that because people are specialists in their job that they couldn't do the other things. If I look around the people I worked with I seriously doubt many of them would struggle in small teams. Their expertise would be wasted, but they had an eye for art far superior to the average beginner, their technical skills were based on years of experience, some very specialized, but many software/technical skills are shared between disciplines and they were capable enough to keep jobs over years as well as working in teams.
If you are picking a handful specialists out of probably several hundred applications you most probably are not going to have to take many compromises in these areas. The thing that I noticed the higher quality the company is known for the better the average artist is in all those mentioned fields. The younger artists around me right now need very little if any help and when then to reach the highest quality at very high speed in technically demanding environments. They are not struggling with basics or are hard to work with in any way.
There are stylized projects where you can hit the mark in about a week. I wouldn't count Blizzard projects in that category tho.
Tho it would be nice to be able to wrap things up in a week
Or lets phrase it this way, if you are able to pull it off, we should talk
haha
I busy working on my game right now but at some point I gotta try and see how long it takes me to make an overwatch character. I never done that style but I feel like this is a challenge I have to take now.
Pretty much Nothing in AAA only takes a week nowadays, doesnt matter the style.
A character easily starts at 4 times this.
There are exceptions of course, simple things can be quicker, but an average complex character is not done in 5 workdays.
Its better to take your time to finish a character to a decent quality. I could challenge myself doing an overwatch character in a week, but I'd want to be paid a lot lot more, though I just don't feel its worth it.
Remember that companies do have to account for downtime. Burning out artists by compelling them to speed up, means having more work for them when they are done, unless you're okay with letting them go en masse.
Profitability from sales is also not assured, so in many ways keeping things going requires keeping them working.
Government grant money also needs to be staggered rather than given out in lump sum to be profitable.
Changes I'd like to see is more money on development vs marketing and moving the studios outside expensive cities with more remote/floating contract work to reduce the per employee cost.
(I'd read that its 10,000$ per employee/month, large part of that being rent with salary second, its tax payer money paid back to tax payer as salary which is then taxed. Senseless.)
Also in the studio environment, a lot of stuff gets reused/repurposed, so its very rare that you would have to go through the same process as you would a personal portfolio piece. And many people work on the same asset so maybe in that sense it could be a weeks worth in some cases?
Which makes the portfolio requirement even more bizarre, but I think that is just a requirement everyone has arrived at given the total lack of transparency in the industry.
I also think that its unfair to put every artist in the same basket. There are several artists good at making armors, but very very few that can capture a good head sculpt.
Does that mean that one is better in a studio environment? Its more with what the studio needs at the time, something they likely don't really know themselves.
Its like that comment on the art test thread about there not being any qualified character artists in Montreal in 2019, there are so many variables and so much you learn of the pipeline on the job, its such a bizarre assumption to make.