3d Game Art Portilio - Looks or efficiency?
polycounter lvl 5
When making a portfolio to break into the industry, should i focus on making the assets look as good as possible and not worry about the efficiency of the model, i.e. polycount, texture size and amount, mirroring uvs etc? Or do you build them as if you were making it for a game, so a balance between both. The latter is how I have been going about this so far so of course I am sacrificing aesthetics here and there because of this, but after reading some discussions it seems that you are able to get away with focusing more on looks and demonstrating you true artistic ability when it comes to the portfolio. Any advice would be appreciated.
Replies
But in general I woulds say people are more likely to hire you if you can make bad ass looking models. Because the technical niceness can be taught faster then all the skills you need to make something look great.
But in reality the good artists are also very good in doing the technical stuff properly.
There is one exception though:
for games you often have to make compromises for bigger technical reasons. E.g. a specific texture layout, the use of specific base meshes, etc.
This is something you usually don't have to show in your portfolio as these can be very specific approaches and you can hardly prepare for any possibility.
Also your work shouldn't need explanations. Nobody is going to read the descriptions of your artworks to understand why you did what. Basically your work needs to be sound. Once you reach the quality level required you most likely have already spent enough time to learn the technical basics and that should be represented in your portfolio.
There is no sense in sacrificing quality for optimization because there isn't 'the ONE correct way of optimizing things'. Optimization is completely dependend on the project and its bottlenecks. But your art should still make sense, esepcially if you show technical stuff like wireframes. Don't show a crappy mesh just to tick off 'having wireframes' in your portfolio, nor a bad UV-layout. Also everything you put on a game character/prop should make sense for real time.
Just demonstrate sensible and sound decision making, without going over bord. It should show that you know the technical part and that you understand it. Worst case you will get a test to prove that you can optimize properly.
The only exception to this is when you are really trying to make a point how good you optimization is. But again, if it doesn't peak someone's interest due to its quality then nobody will give you the time to check out how amazing your optimization is.
Work of quality certainly gains attention (depending on audience and trends), but the industry as a business has a lot of other factors that affect whether that actually leads to any hiring if there actually is an opening to begin with.
Really depends on what is considered good/badass.
Like Cool 3D world is good, as is Beeple's bizarre artwork, but their work is weird as shit.
Several hundred thousand people think that the underground comic artist Robert Crumb is good (CAUTION: extremely NSFW sexist, racist comic art that still has its audience) though he personally has never really given a shit and his audience found him.
Its why I feel that it really is challenging to make a comparison between artwork based on a first impression without actually considering the intended audience. When HR is pressed for time, they likely won't make the best decision, or any decision for that matter, but it should stop you growing.
Its why I usually call bs on the "you are only as good as your worst piece" nonsense.
I mean hate on a really crappy piece all you want if you're pressed for time or don't give a damn, but the actual intention is to make sure that the right people focus on what you want them to see.
Hence culling pieces from your portfolio time to time and overhauling them as you grow in your skill and ability is a good practice.
I've always believed that so long as you're true to what you're doing you'll attract the right people.
But be mindful of what certain jobs requite, usually if company recruiting are competent, any portfolio requirements are listed properly in job lisitngs.
Also realise that besides the poaching between companies, and employees bailing for better offers, a lot of hiring happens through word of mouth or internally.
It is difficult to define loyalty in most entertainment industries atleast in the west.
But there is always incentive to improving yourself as an artist and seeing potential in your work beyond what the industry offers you.
This
I've never got a job like this. I suppose some ppl get lucky like this, but don't be fooled, you should find time to put into a good portfolio always
The aspect of a portfolio being good or bad ass or quality is so speculative depending on the situation,
it really comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
That and many recruiters act on impulse, so timing of an application is also very important.
For instance given the present situation with the virus, I've seen a surge of remote work from studios that wouldn't be bothered to respond to my earlier applications in studio.
And in some cases its with the same portfolio, so either I got good or they lowered their standards, though really its just comes down to what they need at the moment.
It might not even be the same recruiters going through the application. People move around constantly.
Its a fallacy to believe that it all comes down to portfolio, but then again this is an art site so this is to be expected.
Many artists are looking to meet and work with artists from companies they ultimately want to work at. Also they're young, usually single and ready to move at a moments notice, so this also factors in to who is picked.
It would be beneficial to the industry to have a more varied profile among employees and consider the relevance of different backgrounds rather than solely see them as tools for production, and mind you once inside they really do not see them this way (most of the time), since like any corporate environment, you get to know people better once you've worked with them.
I'm thinking this approach is lost because of the fast paced nature of the industry given it being more marketing and entertainment oriented. And this is more seen in AAA given their volume and scale of releases year after year.
From my experience at studios I can't really say that all the work there requires specialists or that all the artists there are bad ass.
I also work in 3rd party QA so I get to see first hand what a mess it can be, I really do wonder what is going on internally.
While something that looks good catches attention of the right audience, for recruitment, it is absolutely essential to look into the technical side and overall profile to ensure longevity and loyalty.
There are also several instances of artists not being able to manage working remotely as well as they do working in studio, they need the camaraderie of the studio environment to work.
In this case it absolutely is a matter of efficiency and discipline and if studio recruiters don't give that equal consideration then you see situations like overtime, delays and mismanagement.
What is needed is versatility and that is something I don't see demonstrated very often.
Breaking into the industry is almost entirely portfolio based. Occasionally you'll have a graduate recommended by a tutor you met previously but that's probably 1 in 20 or 50 hires. Mostly it's cold applications or people you meet when you go out visiting universities
When youve been around a few years ex colleagues who've spread out become a great source of new opportunities but that's not something you'll have if you're starting out
This isn't to say that they had no portfolio, or their work wasn't up to standard, but there was no real bar that that each seemed to have crossed, not to mention every assessment took a number of other factors into consideration before a acceptance.
Add to this the fact that the work they actually did in studio was so far removed from the work they did in their portfolios that its no surprise that so many of them ultimately bailed despite being touted as being everything from samurai ninja's to rockstars.
The unfortunate fact is that given the speculative nature of each circumstance and the fear of retaliation for speaking out, the usual rhythm seems to be live on and hopefully learn. You only really need to look over glassdoor to get a clear picture of the complete situation and then decide accordingly.
To be honest most entry level candidates really have no choice, though luckily there are many avenues besides games where 3D has applications.
So in that sense for entry level a positive recommendation is pretty critical to make the hiring process quite flexible. What it does not guarantee is any real transparency that the candidate will remain loyal as an employee in the long term or that a company will treat them right and retain them after they are no longer relevant/in the limelight.
Its something that the entertainment industry (film/television) sees frequently the only difference being that they have a union protecting them.
So In that sense a recommendation is seen as a safe bet for the time and could be from something as trivial as this person is good (or good enough) and I can play street fighter V with them after work, so its a good idea to hire them.
I'd also seen a segment where HR actually looked over employee demographics and tallied numbers to diversity targets, later insisting on employees to refer others that would help them meet these quotas. (and acquire economic incentives and positive PR for doing so)
Again one assumes that these referrals are competent in their work.
Its nothing personal, its just business.
Also most studios are insulated against any losses incurred should the lack of transparency backfire on them.
In Toronto for instance a large portion of an employees cost is paid for by the tax payer, and this model is quite prominent in several other cities.
The one place I would say a portfolio, rather a portfolio with very specific technical requirements that influence overall quality of work and good understanding of the medium is critical is applying for specific roles, like hair & fun artist, or character/creature TD
Or when you're looking to join companies that hire looking for a very specific type of portfolio that is reflected in the artists profile like Naughty Dog with its no producer brutal crunch policy or Guerrilla games who's work requires additional knowledge of engineering or industrial design.
Thats where a recommendation would really only have merit based on the work involved.
Again there are several stray situations that go past the norm (if there is a norm)
The worst situation I've seen personally is a colleague who went in for an interview with his girlfriend accompanying him.
She sat outside while he interviewed.
Later in the day he got a call saying he wasn't a good fit, but they wanted to know if his girlfriend would be interested in a training program for the same role.
So he could have recommended her kinda of like her pimp so to speak.
She had no art background whatsoever, but they were willing to accommodate her for a position he could be trained for.
Sick Bastards... and this was not at some no name company, they had a history of hiring certain types of women for the explicit purpose of hooking up with them.
But seriously I did try to get my colleagues to post here publicly but they really can't afford to lose their jobs nor is it really fair to sacrifice them given how volatile the situation is.
Porfolio's do matter but how can you really make a fair assessment about how it impacts the credibility of the artist where there is so little transparency in the hiring process?
Like in an ideal universe, if everyone hired was absolutely badass, I wouldn't have a job doing QA, and Mass Effect Andromeda would be game of the year.
But as an artist its certainly important to keep building on your portfolio and profile and explore all possible avenues.
In the market experience is likely the better teacher.
If portfolio quality would be the main indicator you would have only the people with the best portfolios working in the industry and this is simply not true. You need a solid portfolio but from then on there are many other factors like location, nationality, salary expectation, age, character, and last but not least: luck.
Last thing - QA and by far even more outsource QA doesn't have all the info due to the nature of the beast being too big for perfect information flow. Sometimes things look bad, but they are either meant to be replaced, don't really matter as they are low priority, have been submitted just by mistake, and so on. Everybody can fuck something up, especially in a high stress environment, this doesn't mean they lack the skills.
But like everything in life things are more complex than just saying 'portfolio' is the only thing that matter. Rollin is completely correct about what he wrote. Still, the thing you are mostly in control of is your portfolio, so there is no excuse to not treat it as the highest priority when searching for a job. Getting your portfolio 'right' is a recommendation of its own. You can prove that you have the skills/artistic eye by showing quality and you can prove that you know how to do things correctly by showing sound decisions in the technical aspects like good wirefames, UVs,... and also that you can do the work the specific employer needs.
the quickest way to improve your networking results is to have a killer portfolio (and a good personality). people will want to associate with you more than if you have a sub par portfolio because its more of a even relationship. when someone who is a student or super junior level goes out and tries to network it is often very apparent they want something from the people they are trying to network with. most likely they are going to be begging for a recommendation or looking for the easy in shortcut, or they are going to want to take a bunch of your time to get feedback and constantly be hitting you up asking if there is any open positions etc.
For me, I put myself out there with my content and am happy to try and help people, that's my thing. as a result I get a ton of emails and requests from students looking for feedback, tips or random recommendations. I do what I can but it's getting exponentially more and more, to the point where I don't have time to even reply to every DM or email, it would literally take me 8 hours a day some weeks to do so. but i knew this would happen when i first started my polygon academy project, essentially opening myself up to that influx of outreach.
but the average person in the industry doesn't want to deal with that, they want to just work and then do their own thing on their time, so networking with a bunch of students tends to be the last thing they want to do. When someone sends them an email/DM with a student or "ok" portfolio attached, they know if they reply or get involved it's opening the door for a time sink with hundreds of questions about jobs and workflows etc. VS when someone with a fully fleshed out AAA level portfolio reaches out to them (im talking artstation dm's here where in one click you have context on the person messaing you's skill level). In that case they are probably more open to chatting back and forth because they can probably see they are not going to get 20 workflow questions from that person, as they clearly already know what they are doing. the relationship starts on a more even level instead of being extremely one sided.
so in the long run, having an awesome portfolio will help with networking and connections as well, but still most people are not going to give you a recommendation out the gate if they have never actually worked with you. suggestions and iron stamped recommendations are also very different.
the 2 main things that will get you a job: your portfolio, and your personality, luckily you have direct control over both. if you find yourself getting zero replies from job applications, it's probably your portfolio. if you find yourself getting lots interviews but never offers, it could be your personality and vibe people don't like. portfolio gets you in the room, personality and fit seals the deal in most cases. and both those things matter when networking and making connections as well.
now I know a lot of my posts come off as "portfolio is the only thing that matters!" and I agree I overemphasize it a lot of the time. Rollin is right, age, location, salary range, luck are all factors that come into play. my main point is....based on my 13+ years industry experience both being hired at multiple studios and being directly involved in the hiring of many artists.....the better your portfolio is, the less that other shit matters. Things just become easier in general the more you can show mastery of your craft.
As for getting in through reccomendations vs. purely through portfolios, four of the five junior-ish level people hired on Volition's environment team had absolutely no prior relationship with anyone else at the studio. Though it is possible that this isn't the case at other studios.
"We found someone who is a better fit for our current needs. We are constantly hiring, thank you for your continued interest and please apply again"
leads to
"portfolio is not good enough,"
And after much the same mail after an interview,
rests on
"personality is something they don't like."
I mean by all means improve that portfolio and work on that personality, but this feels synonymous to swiping right on tinder and then being ghosted after a preliminary interest.
I'm certain that with concentrated effort, passion and careful mastery of your skill we'll all be Vitaly Bulgarovs in good time, but atleast at the moment or when you are looking for that first job, it is important to consider that what isn't good enough for one studio may be good for another studio/freelance client, or good enough for the same studio depending on its hiring needs.
I mean good possibility that their hiring process has little to nothing to do with your portfolio or personality but maybe something more vital like "budgeting and timing"?
I agree those are factors you can't control and likely we're all slaves to studio management incompetency, it is a corporate environment after all and you're likely just a tool until they take the trouble to actually get to know you.
But your work, regardless of how good/shit multiple people on the internet think it is, can have an audience for whom it is good enough, and are willing to pay you for and give you the work experience you need to improve your profile and market yourself better.
Speaking from personal experience, I've had a variety of criticism of my work,
1. some valid (skin/hair/lighting/presentation)
[Art Director/Lead] [In person interview and private follow up last year]
2. some downright confusing (you have no realistic pieces, you're work is good for mobile, you are a junior artist, I don't have time to help you)
[Character Artist who posted an opening and I contacted recently]
3. And some absolutely bonkers
Khan model needs to be a woman because all the torn clothing would make her sexier
[possibly smashed Art Lead that is a star trek fan]
you're a sexist pig since your portfolio is predominantly male, you patriarchal bastard
[very angry possibly SJW character artist that suddenly messaged me and then blocked me]
Add to the fact that all of these people were from the same AAA studio, and 2 found the work good but could be better, 1 found it sexy but could be sexier, 1 had no valid reasoning behind why he felt that my realistic pieces weren't realistic, and the last one was just a raging psychopath.
The actual reason for rejection [by the art director] and likely the only one that was worth considering was - studio decided to add experience requirements that were not initially expected, so you were never really evaluated for that. Keep applying.
Now compare that to criticism from an audience that actually cares about the pieces and isn't a corporate powerhouse.
This is superb!
Could we add this to our fan game we'll pay you!
Can we get this 3D printed
If there are any changes you need to make take your time.
One could of course say these people are absolute proles compared to the samurai ninja's that worked in the studio, but what mattered was they were willing to pay to get what they wanted now. And pay well mind you.
This also connected me to additional contracts outside the game industry but with compensation and flexibility far better than what the studio had to offer.
Might I add that the other character artist who seemed convinced I had no realistic pieces and was overall a junior artist, recommended I scrap all my art and start over since every piece there gave me a bad impression.
So my point is that had I not done my due diligence and simply rested on the laurels of that self professed top tier nut, I wouldn't have gotten any opportunities that would have allowed me to better myself.
The problem is that unless the studio absolutely desires you (which is why they go through all the trouble to poach you) there is a good possibility that they simply do not care since you're just as good for the job as the next person, or their needs are so fluid that not everyone is in the loop.
I mean it really is up to the OP to decide what advice to go with, I mean you have a guy here who goes by the handle of a sewerage line and remains anonymous, so their advice is as good as anyone else's I suppose.
There literally is no way to verify anything, even on glassdoor.
Luckily usually if you keep at something long enough you'll likely get good at it regardless of what people say. Or rather you'll find an audience that thinks you're good.
But while getting better at your craft is your responsibility, going out and finding people who feel you're good enough for what they need is also important, and sometimes its just dumb luck.
Always spread a wider net.
My adage has always been that unless a rejection explicitly states that you are lacking in studio or personality, or you go and find out that that was precisely the problem, while you can re-evaluate yourself, I wouldn't desperately eliminate an entire body of work or muddle my brain with confusing critique.
It really isn't worth it even if you are absolutely dead set on joining that particular studio and there is just no other option.
Don't let your life pass you by in your pursuit of someone else's expectations unless you're being paid for it/are gaining something meaningful from the experience.
Kinda important to be in the company of people that see you as less of a tool and more of a person.
You make a fair point though, I could be making everything up or indeed I could be part of a secret game industry conspiracy who's sole purpose is to keep talented new artists from ever achieving gainful employment.
I can't prove these ideas to be false so instead I'll refer you to Occam's razor and bow out.
So, back to your original post. Do you have to show the exact polycount, texture size, and UV's? probably not. Unless you're applying for a mobile company, maybe. You can probably showcase wireframes, or have them viewable in Marmoset Viewer, just to make sure. Just try not to spend way too much time on something that's so small. If you're pressed for time, don't dwell on the little stuff like super clean geo under a mesh where no one will even see it, etc.
However I have to admit it was interesting to read!