Uncoventional porfolio criticism
polycounter
I thought I'd start a thread where we can share the more unconventional portfolio criticism we've all received in our quest to become toptier rockstars.
Unconventional = mostly unhelpful and tongue in cheek trolling, many times condescending and at worst downright insulting and dehumanising with a total lack of empathy and complete disregard for details.
Usually this kind of criticism when countered is followed by "google it" or the critiquer refuses to engage further sometimes blocking you.
Feel free to post links or pictures of your work alongside the critique.
No need to mention the critiquer. You can also add a note about your self critique of the critique in Artist Comments
Please list under the following format
Portfolio -
General Critique -
Specific Ciritque -
Artists Comments -
Unconventional = mostly unhelpful and tongue in cheek trolling, many times condescending and at worst downright insulting and dehumanising with a total lack of empathy and complete disregard for details.
Usually this kind of criticism when countered is followed by "google it" or the critiquer refuses to engage further sometimes blocking you.
Feel free to post links or pictures of your work alongside the critique.
No need to mention the critiquer. You can also add a note about your self critique of the critique in Artist Comments
Please list under the following format
Portfolio -
General Critique -
Specific Ciritque -
Artists Comments -
Replies
Portfolio - https://nikhilr.artstation.com/
General portfolio critique
- This is student work
- You should discard all of it and start over
- It doesn't look cool enough
- This is not next gen
- Have you seen my work?
- Did you just graduate?
- Do you know how to google?
- Your portfolio clearly needs more women/black/LGBT characters for better representation.
- You are clearly not a rockstar/top tier artist
- You should make characters of more popular personalities like twitch streamers, youtubers and tiktokers.
- You should go back to healthcare.
- Something just looks off
- Your portfolio is too old
- Your work just doesn't look complicated enough.
- Your work is just not good enough in general.
Specific portfolio critique
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/vqL4d
- I don't like it since she reminds me of my ex, I want to punch her.
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/AbOvz
- F*ing fat shaming
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/baDw1d
- I think this would work more for applications in china
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/nQWzEo
- Star Trek is for nerds! Nerd!
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/3YOXB
- Can you release this for free?
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/zvgn6
- Looks like bug eyed goblin
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/k60zA
- So cute!! Best work yet! This is what gets you the job.
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/8q6RE
- Is this stylized or cartoony?
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/Eoe6v
- Looks constipated
- This is your worst piece, brings down the whole portfolio
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/oK53w
- This is too childish, you should make something more closer to your age like marvel/DC or star wars
Artists Comments
While I've considered the following criticism above, I've also received comments that counter or elaborate on it which is more useful in making improvements.
For example,
for "this is student work" there has been "I think your level is intermediate but you can certainly improve in areas of lighting and presentation"
And I've managed to have every character regarded as the weakest link meaning it's seen as the worst artwork that brings down the whole portfolio depending on who you ask, except for the dog that gets universal approval.
So take each criticism with the superficiality with which it was given.
While I would have liked to go more into the details of the critiquers, I don't want to start a witch hunt but many came from senior artists that currently work for AAA companies. (several of whom have been sadly laid off regardless of the quality of their work)
While its always helpful to consider the perspective of others, when it comes to applying for a job there is little to no transparency on what impact your portfolio actually has in getting that art test which then leads to an interview.
Companies usually can't give out feedback either because of they haven't budgeted for it, the volume of applicants doesn't allow it or employees are legally prevented from doing so.
I just feel that many people may have just had a bad day and want to unload their frustrations on the defenseless artwork of others. Can only imagine how severe they must be on their own artwork.
They were the more general critiques, like
- Your portfolio is too old
- This is student work
- Did you just graduate?
- Your work is just not good enough in general.
I termed them unconventional since they didn't lead to more meaningful conversation or feed back though I did receive some feedback for specific pieces when it came to lighting, rendering and increasing fidelity.
Not how to, more like I should improve it and find out how to using Google.
I did do this and found a lot of resources that helped me improve so not entirely useless advice but limited. Can't say everyone that does this would be as capable.
And with specifics, each piece was pulled down for something or the other, which is probably where the
- "You should discard all of it and start over"
Came from.
Except that damn dog.
The critiques that were more like roasts were on social media like Facebook groups that had a mix of industry professionals and students.
I've had much more colorful critiques on older pieces and work in progress generally along the lines of there's no point doing that piece since it's not what companies are working on/art style they follow so it doesn't matter.
But even an anime style piece done badly provided experience to better myself on future pieces which they simply could not see.
I would insist on this, that no attempt was wasted and that I can always come back and improve older pieces which was generally frowned upon and seen as a waste of time.
So eventually the commentary devolved to roasting such as calling me a weeb (people who like anime and japanese culture) 😂
I'm just glad I didn't respond in kind since it can be demoralizing.
I have successfully used this portfolio to apply to jobs so while I'm not entirely sure if the portfolio actually mattered beyond being a pre requisite for an art test i feel it really comes down to the person reviewing it while following company mandated protocol and timing.
I do find the experience funny so thought to make a thread to see if others have had similar experiences.
- This is student work
- Did you just graduate?
- Your work is just not good enough in general.
Game industry certainly has the most interesting people I've ever met, in life experience and aspirations.
But I certainly did use that one universal criticism of "don't you know how to google" and its working quite well as you can see here,
https://nikhilr.artstation.com/projects/49L0vY
I also noticed that not all seniors make for good mentors, so its really important to find one that fits. The internet being like the wild west makes that difficult but you usually find the right mentor who you may not get to know personally but the information they've provided can truly transform your art if you put in the effort.
Would have liked to have get to know some of the people behind the unconventional criticism though. I feel some of them could really use some postitivity in their life.
I am hoping more people share their experiences here.
I didn't get the question, did you mean to ask if I'm updating stuff on AS using the work experience I gained from my previous employment when I have time/inclination to do so?
To answer I'd say its a mix of the work experience I gained, as in once I was done with my contract I looked for ways to replicate the workflow and tools and though I don't have any experience writing proprietary tools, I found software that came really close and in many ways surpasses the workflow I used internally.
I'm hoping this is something that is considered in future employment.
About the critique, I have noticed differences in the critique I've received when I have been employed, or have had employment experience in AAA studios, as opposed to not being employed/working on portfolio or employed by a smaller studio.
There is very little criticism when I'm employed as if the portfolio is sufficient and needs no improvement.
After employment, the criticism is to more defined towards what I should do to get employment, then again in my case the advice I received was to discard my portfolio, not improve it as I'm doing now.
What I would have liked was more input on salvaging pieces but generally the advice was just forget about old work, improving it is a waste of time. I can't understand this mentality for the life of me and upon inquiring it has something to do with the shame many artists felt about previous work.
I think this was because they were humiliated for it usually by their peers, and took out their frustrations on their work everytime they experienced a rejection hating on it for eternity.
This despite the fact that there was no real transparency in the rejections they received.
Either they didn't receive a response or it was the generic "We appreciated your work but we've decided to go with a candidate that more closely matches our needs at the moment."
Then they would go join others who felt rejected and end up into a pit of misery and self loathing.
The top tier, rockstar artist comments from seniors didn't really help their confidence.
When I wasn't employed and had no industry experience, I recieved the worst of the unconventional criticism above, and it came from a mix of industry professionals and other unemployed, inexperience artists that really hated themselves, so it was a kind of vile echo chamber of self destruction where nothing was ever good enough.
I don't see much awareness or discussion about this. Many artists I knew in my school days were deathly afraid of voicing any opinion whatsoever for fear of being cancelled when in reality there were many professionals who understood what they were going through.
As such I have managed to have every piece being considered the worst in my portfolio, and at the same time had this same portfolio find me work.
Its confusing about where exactly I am to stop and say that I've done it, finally I'm a top tier rockstar.
I certainly didn't consider myself that when I got hired, I've always seen those terms as mostly used by company marketing since they have to hype their employee roster to remain relevant to gamers and shareholders.
Like with all the artists laid off, is this their fall from grace? That their rockstar status never really mattered?
I did find some beautiful article commemorating those that were truly exceptional and have sadly left us,
like https://kotaku.com/the-life-and-creativity-of-a-great-bethesda-artist-1740993491
If you watch this interview with the late Mike Nash (rest his soul) he comes across as very humble and modest despite his incredible skill and talent which is at a whole different level, a class of his own
And he doesn't care if others see him as junior, intermediate, associate, assistant, apprentice, character artist 1, character artist 2, character artist, senior character artist, principle character artist, character art director etc.
He valued his art at every stage of development in his artist journey, regardless of how much others may have felt it resembled a potato.
I don't know if people know that Mike Nash passed away on January 18th 2021, there was no announcement about it as far as I know on polycount.
I recommend also watching the interview with his parents following his passing,
The most posts I found were on reddit.
About what I learned so far on the job, workflow wise I would say the work was a mix of quality assurance of game art and game art creation without full creative freedom, (since pipelines had to be respected)
Again this is specific to the project I was part of (FIFA) and in the time I was employed, a year and 6 months.
There is work that does have more creative input but what you get to do is really determined by what is necessary in that time frame and if you can be assigned that responsibility.
Its not a "world class portfolio = heres concept create character = world class top tier artist"
Its more follow the recipe that is budgeted for which provides for efficiency.
I also got a chance to examine the workflow of other projects at EA and found that what is expected of people that join is vastly different from what is stressed in the portfolio's that they apply with.
This is unless they have been hired very specifically for a single task and they will only do this task as specialists.
For example, hair artists and material artists.
Everyone else, regardless of the level they were at contributed at pretty much everything depending on their availabilty and you were expected to find opportunities to learn and grow. (not easy to do if you're not permanent)
Many jumped between projects during down time and there was a lot of learning and troubleshooting. Not everything worked on made the final cut.
Hence being adaptable and resourceful was vital, which for me I feel I accomplished by working on multiple characters at once learning to see variations.
This is something I was routinely criticised for during my student years, but really helped in working on body scaling and proportioning in studio.
If I'd followed the advice of making a single awesome world class character following a rigid modeling pipeline I would be at a disadvantage because the automated proprietary pipeline with outsourcing and model libraries makes a lot of what we do for a portfolio totally redundant in studio.
And many new hires struggled initially with this and had to learn to adapt.
There is so much work that is reused and repurposed which defeats the advice of discarding older work for portfolios when instead it should be retained and enhanced.
Like one criticism I received before I was employed was my work "doesn't look next gen" and I should just discard it.
I didn't understand and asked the senior what this meant and his answer was it looks like student work and that I should google for ways to bring it to next gen.
He then provided his current senior level portfolio as an example and declined to show his work that got him his job since he felt it didn't matter since my work starting out had to be at his level given the competition since times have changed.
But I did get work with the portfolio I showed him, so maybe his company is in a different time zone.
In reality after researching on my own I found that the real issue with my artwork was more about shading networks, detailing and lighting.
This seniors company also uses a propietary modified shading network within a modified unreal engine, information that he cannot share or acknowledge.
I mean they can acknowledge it but many rarely do.
In that sense it became important to do more digging and research to find out how to replicate these pipelines or atleast find tools built by people that have replicated it.
I find that Character Creator 4's workflow is the closest, and it does leverage your foundation skills to use it effectively.
Its possible also to use metahuman, but it can become a mad struggle since it isn't very optimized.
That said I still don't know what next gen is, so I try to push the work to look close to what is in the latest game releases specific to any company I apply to.
But I also learned about how many corners are cut internally for efficiency since the priority is not just making world class art but also meeting deadlines and release dates.
To adapt to this you need more life experience than what you get from simply making a world class portfolio and good recruiters understand this.
Like sure on your personal time, push that art and take as much time as you need, but using this approach for a portfolio piece doesn't necessarily mean that you have what it takes to work collectively.
One way I've seen some schools approach this is to have a group project when students get together to make a game level or cinematic.
I find that to be very effective as a final project, but the ground work needs to be there to bring students to level of knowledge, skill and resourcefullness to work cooperatively.
when it comes to interviews and what to wear, I stick to formal casuals (long sleeve shirt, jeans, trousers and shoes) and in doing so have encountered interviewers in shorts, t shirts, hoodies and flip flops while sitted on a gym ball.
Some studios do have dress codes for interviews so this is likely not the case everywhere.
People generally will be reticent on sharing the critism they've received, regardless on whether its warrented or not.
Looking back I found the unconventional criticism I received to be more ludicrous than anything though it was startling to receive it at the time.
I also found it to be a great way to understand people and how they react and grow. For instance if I ran some of that criticism by the people that gave it 5 7 years ago who are now seniors, they would likely deny it.
I hope they do deny it now, knowing better with the life experience they have hopefully gained.
Was basic crits about taking Scott Eaton's anatomy class and using cloth sim (you didn't seem to agree with either).
I was considering taking Scott Eatons anatomy class, but what I would learn from the course wasn't considered relevant to my work at EA after I had my anatomy work assessed internally.
One advice I was given was to create pieces with more exaggerated anatomy, so heavy fat and musculature to show more variation, but this was more to get familiar with those forms, not that they would necessarily translate to work in studio or get me work at other studios.
I've also been looking at ways to automate anatomy since they used proprietary tools in studio and the workflow I'm using is giving positive results.
The same with cloth sim, I am experienced with Marvelous designer, zbrush has an interesting approach to simulating cloth which I am learning for a few accessories I want to make for the models I'm upgrading.
At EA, the knowledge I had with cloth simulation was seen as sufficient, they do have internal tools to manage those processes as well.
From my experience I did find that the approaches used for portfolio work with the tools we have are made redundant by tools used in studio.
Like at EA, the use of my anatomical knowledge was limited since they had plugins that managed most of the anatomy.
Is it the same at the studio's you've worked at?
From colleagues who have worked at Ubisoft, Sledgehammer, Digital Extremes, Gameloft and Coalition they all use tools and plugins which automate most of the game art pipeline, so I felt that approaching game art from a more technical standpoint might be the way forward.
I do feel that Scott Eaton's class might help out in sculpture for 3D printing though I'm not entirely sure if having anatomical studies like the ones in Colton Orr's portfolio that you'd shared
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/VdZRmX
would translate directly to getting work as a senior character artist in AAA.
Meaning I don't know if I should prioritise it, but certainly can after my older work is upgraded though the pipeline I'm following now.
It wasn't explicitly pointed out having anatomical studies was an absolute must to qualify my work as senior level.
Would it have as much weight given how anatomy is approached in studio using 3D scan geometry and base meshes for topology and detailing?
At EA, something like what you see in Coltons work was a combination of using scan geometry to create a custom character and the musculature and anatomical deformations were handled by technical artists since the output was game ready geometry not a sculpture for posing.
Meaning from Coltons work I can see that he can replicate musculature to match a photo reference but it isn't clear to me if he understands muscular deformation in animation.
In studio I don't know if that something he needs to be concerned with at a technical level since for characters they usually always use a base mesh to achieve uniformity so you don't have a whole lot of input in the technical process involved in rigging, skinning and animation.
All of his industry work once hired looks to be a collective effort, and I found this to be the case at EA as well. The opportunity to work on a character the way we approach it in our portfolio (taking care of every step) was very rare and so much of the process was outsourced/automated.
I certainly need to do more examples of hair creation, skin texturing/ detailing and blendshapes and I found a great way to make that process more efficient with the tools I'm currently using, so I'm certainly seeing progress there.
From the metrics I know from EA, to be hired to a senior position, it was a combination of headcount and budget, industry experience, published titles and personal work in that order that decided if I would be hired.
Not entirely sure how it is in other studios, but I was encouraged to keep applying since the order these metrics are applied in can be flexible depending on timing and market.
While I can't really control the first 4, there was no real consensus on what I should do in my personal work that would guarantee getting a job meaning it varied depending on the project I was applying to.
Like at EA Motive, they are looking for artists that do hard surface work, so that is certainly on the agenda to create a more full size character, since the hard surface I have now isn't coming across as the focus of my portfolio.
I've also been looking through Keos Mason and Mike Nash's workflow to create portfolio work that shows a good balance between conceptual design and technical effciency.
I also felt that it would help to show my models with full animation (facial and body) so recruiters can see long term potential seeing I know how to create topology that works for animation.
I would have loved to done all of this on the job, but that was unfortunately not possible because of headcount and budget, because of which my contract wasn't made permanent atleast this was the reason I was given and I wasn't the only person affected.
I'm still not entirely clear about how much weight a portolio actually has on the final decision to hire a canditate as opposed to what its impact is on first impressions which can be variable.
Like with Coltons work,
I found this piece,
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Ye34vP
to be the most defining of himself as an artist, though can't place where it would apply in production and he's quiite clear it isn't meant to.
You're free to agree or disagree, but I can tell from your work the anatomy is 90% there but is slightly off to most Senior Character Artists. Scotts class would really round you out and really help you level up. Your stuff was so close.
BTW Colton got work with Insomniac mostly on the strength of his 'Bodies in Motion' sculpts (which he did in my class). I know this because Gavin (the Character Art Lead) told me.
Portfolio showcasing technical skills is the most important thing. Nobody cares about your personal expressions.
"Like at EA, the use of my anatomical knowledge was limited since they had plugins that managed most of the anatomy."
Heya - well, the point of a (good) anatomy course isn't just to be able to sculpt/model an accurate muscleman. But this is a bit of chicken and egg situation, as you seem to be firmly convinced to know in advance and in full detail what you would have learned from an art class ... that you have not taken.
Similarly to the thread about showing old work, I can't help but think that there is an underlying question or point under the surface here. Are you seeking portfolio advice/reviews ?
"Like at EA, the use of my anatomical knowledge was limited since they had plugins that managed most of the anatomy."
It is an interesting subject and very subjective.... I remember watching colleagues going through some of the work/ models from a game in direct competition with us at the time and it was only the negative that they saw (which was odd because it was a better game and had the sales to prove it :? ! ).... when I was looking for what they did well
I don't understand how that could upset any industry veterans because with less meat being fed into the machine, then they'd be worth a few pennies more.
With Colton's work I'm curious to know what was assessed from the Bodies in Motion sculpts that he could apply directly in his work at Insomaniac games.
From his artstation, the work he has showcased is mainly skins for existing characters, was he able to apply what he had gained from those sculpts in the work assigned?
Its great that this was the work that got him hired, I'm just not able to personally assess how it applied to the work he eventually did at Insomaniac games from what he has shown in his portfolio.
Gavin also doesn't have anything comparable in his portfolio here, https://gavin.artstation.com/projects, was his assessment of Colton's work more subjective in that sense or did it follow any specific hiring metrics at insomaniac when it comes to their character art pipeline?
i.e do character artists at insomaniac games create anatomy from scratch or do they use a pipeline workflow that automates that process (like EA does)
I wish companies were more upfront about this, but I understand if its not done owing to NDA's and such.
And I do find many artists holding back on this information to give more weight to their actual contribution that what it actually merits.
Also the Bodies in Motion sculpts seems more indicative of personal expression than technical skill. Colton mentions his interest in dance so I'm certain that directly impacted his choice of gymnasts for those sculpts.
I felt that there was no one piece (prior to being hired) that was more indicative of technical skill, but if I were to choose it would be this one,
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/e15a3
It would be interesting to run this character through the workflow I am using.
I'm sure the course would be very useful in creating sculptures. I'm not firmly convinced in my assessment, but looking at reviews from people having taken the course, I can't say that it would give me skills that I could apply directly to what I need to get a job at the studio I have the best chance of being hired at.
Atleast this is going from my being told to focus on more technical aspects.
I wasn't seeking portfolio advice/review, both these posts were more to encourage a discussion,
Alex put it across perfectly.
I'm not currently with EA, I hope to be a part of the studio again and I am also considering other studios though I'm still not entirely convinced if doing that particular course would be the deciding factor in my getting hired.
In the end its going to come down to my time and budget, after I've put all the characters I currently have through the pipeline I invested in, I could certainly look into it more.
Also its an expensive program, so limited on budget when considering the course's relevance.
The pipeline I'm using though efficient and user friendly has a steep learning curve so alreadly quite a stretch in modernising my workflow.
Many students graduating with me destroyed their work and nuked portfolios humiliated by the criticism they received.
The subjectivity in reviewing portfolio's isn't emphasized enough.
But I can't blame new hires for thinking they are rockstars for getting hired.
The majority of the students I graduated with were more motivated by the chance to work on games they liked playing and working in companies that made them so they could brag to their friends about how they were now devs.
Their actual contribution with game dev being a collective effort and so much being outsourced was greatly exaggerated in this regard in several cases.
For EA,
My 2018 portfolio was found to be sufficient to be given an art test.
This portfolio only had the khan model made in 2018 on the left (seen with upgrades with latest on the right that uses geometry from the 2018 - 2022 one with enchancements to topology and shaders, more detail in image.
I wanted to retain as much of the original as possible since it was meant to be an upgrade, not a new character. (like in studio where they often reuse older models)
This work was seen as weak and I was called a nerd for making it, EA didn't seem to think so or atleast their assessment of it wasn't as subjective. (there were many nerds at EA)
When I got hired the criticism on the 2018 model changed dramatically and it became a bar to reach to get hired. (I still wasn't convinced it was and insisted on the Art test setting the bar)
Though the upgrade process I wasn't able to get useful specific criticism and feedback to improve it and had to google for it.
I still considered this valid, so not unconventional, but nothing I could really use, since the criticism wasn't followed by any resources to actually improve on what was being criticised.
I consider Scott Eatons class as providing overall improvement to knowledge of anatomy and its application to digital sculpture, but I do want to ask if I can tailor that course to specific sculpts I already have which might make it more useful.
Reference,
Outside of my portfolio, after getting feedback I learned that EA also saw my work experience in QA and dealing with patient records in dentistry to be very adaptable to their pipeline and modifying hundreds of body scales.
They also felt I had demonstrated good attention to detail and given their pipeline to automate and repurpose much of anatomy and hair creation, for the position I was being hired at, creating anatomy and hair from scratch was less of a priority and I really only needed a good foundation to effectively use their internal workflow.
One of my leads also does freelance work in making scale sculptures
https://www.artstation.com/victorhugosousa
I do feel Scott Eatons anatomy course and having more anatomy studies could certainly help if I choose to go in this direction, but I was also cautioned that work in this industry isn't very stable so probably best not to see it as a day job.
I think you are misunderstanding what an art anatomy course is about. Perhaps you are taking the term literally (as in "knowing the muscles"), but obviously when people suggest that you take an anatomy course they mean *artistic* anatomy.
To give you a bit of context : this kind of class will cover things like the anatomy of the arm from the POV of simplifying the various shapes to their core essentials, like how to represent the whole shoulder as a cube and so on. And once you become able to see things that way it can be applied to all kinds of seemingly barely related things. For instance, once you understand how body structures can be simplified, you can start applying the same concepts to, say, the structure of a stylized face.
As a matter of fact your portfolio demonstrate a certain lack of knowledge/understanding in precisely that area. But as said this is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, since once can't know what they don't know. But that's what people mean when they suggest that you take an anatomy course. Of course they don't expect you to guess all that - but they do expect you to trust their advice.
- - - - -
You best pieces are in my opinion the KillLaKill dog and the Yasmine and Sebastian sculpts. They are very faithful to the characters and do not undermine the source material in any way.
But this is IMHO severely undermined by the Gamagori and Tarzan models.
An art lead/AD will instantly notice that these pieces look inferior to their source material, due to a lack of understanding of stylized animated art and lackluster presentation. It's especially obvious because there are tons of great looking statuettes and production sculpts/renders available to use as reference for these characters (or similar Disney/anime characters). So these pieces not living up to their references is a red flag.
Your strongest point seems to be the technical/pipeline side of things, since pieces like the Samurai and Khan models appear to be very cleanly executed. As a matter of fact, some better presentation could really make them shine ... but knowing how to present a model in the best possible way doesn't come from nowhere, it requires knowledge on light and shade, impactful posing, and so on. All things that one can learn ... in a good anatomy/life drawing course.
Overall I think this portfolio could open up a position as an associate focused on things like retopo/UVs/baking, material setup, and non-hero assets (like for instance taking care of the outfit of a character).
Now I need to add that even though art education and CG software are more available than ever, there is a huge catch with current day game art : there are no hardware limitations anymore, meaning that there is no hard limit dictating when to stop. In practice that means that a character model takes about 10x longer to build now than 10/15 years ago. Hence quite logically it gets harder and harder for people to practice both the artistic aspects and the technical aspects of the craft at the same time. So in that sense I totally understand how one can end up dedicating way too little time to art fundamentals, even though they are by far the most important things to work on in order to develop a solid eye.
I had a question about which course to take, since there are 3 courses from Scott Eaton.
Anatomy for artists
Digital figure sculpture
Facial Anatomy
The Digital figure sculpture course has a section on lighting and rendering, I'm going to ask if I can tailor that course towards my current work before I consider it.
I also want to see how far I get with the lighting and presentation presets offered in character creator and unreal 5.
Meaning I'd apply them and then learn from their setup to create more custom presentations.
Also I think there is some context on the stylised pieces which I didn't put across properly.
The kill la kill dog, gamagori, paprika, tokita and tarzan were meant as interpretations, so they were not meant to match their source material/reference as precisely as Jasmine and the other disney characters .
Tarzan, Paprika, Guts and Tokita were meant to be closer to the source.
They would all would benefit from better hair, skin shaders, lighting and presentation which is in the works
Would undermining the source be a valid criticism since it comes across as a very subjective criticism. Its not a criticism I've very familiar with.
For example with Oliver Coustons Cami how would an art lead/director assess it with regards to its source material?
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Z8nZw
Or even this darth maul?
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w8wmvO
I freaked out when I first saw them, but I was able to appreciate the more technical aspects so I can't say they undermine the source, more like as interpretations they need to be appreciated on their own merits.
I did have Tarzan assessed by a senior artist who found it to be the best of the stylized pieces, Gamagori really throws people off because of the camera focal length and posing, but I did find more appreciation for his static pose.
Paprika can still be put through a cell shaded pipeline, I have to learn a bit more about how to effectively use a cell shader, for the moment I will try to go more towards fortnite characters since she seems to fit that well given her proportions.
+1 about good presentation for the realistic characters. Have hair to tackle and have found some great solutions for that too.
How did you find the upgrade from the comparison shown?
The 2018 portfolio with the single realistic character model already opened up the associate position at EA in 2019 for realistic characters (though I was hired in 2022)
From the responsibilities you mentioned
retopo/UVs/baking and material setup followed a very automated pipeline with several proprietary plugins and all artists on the team at EA followed this pipeline regardless of what level they were at since the volume of characters was very large.
Majority of character assets were received from outsource partners for further processing and finishing, and many assets were repurposed from content libraries.
Non-hero assets (like for instance taking care of the outfit of a character) was handled by prop teams and a lot of this work was outsourced, so the prop and environment teams mainly managed the content by reviewing and making any adjustments prior to finishing and approval from seniors/leads
This pipeline also applied to projects at other EA studios such as Motive, Full Circle and Bioware (ones I interacted with) and though the proportion of custom assets differed, an ample amount of time was given to learning and some artists were more comfortable using more conventional modeling techniques (such as spline modeling) so there was some autonomy on the process depending on milestones.
The emphasis was on efficiency atleast for model art production and every artist was expected to be a problem solver.
What was valued the most was communication, adaptability and a willingness to learn
For example if a material artist was asked to make lava, it wasn't expected that they would have it ready in minutes because they were rockstars.
Each was asked if they felt comfortable taking on this task and learn what was needed to achieve the expected result. If they weren't comfortable say because they can't use substance designer, this task would be offloaded to someone who was or it would be outsourced since what mattered was getting the asset done and the milestone for deliverables was met.
The main aspect where seniors and leads differed from associates were in reviewing work and managing outsourcing partners, and the major advancements I saw were in tech art and programming which would build, maintain and direct the workflows the artists followed.
I'm hoping that the upgrades I'm making can open up more senior artist positions which is why I was upgrading the realistic characters and later applying the same workflow to the stylized models.
For the cartoony ones true to source like jasmine, I will likely maintain them as sculptures and I have a bunch in that style to add to what I have.
3D printing is the direction I feel would work best for them to bring them directly to market, though I did have interest from gameloft during the pandemic for Disney Dreamlight valley.
At the time I couldn't consider it since I was on contract with EA, though they did say I could reach out to them after my contract was complete.
Getting a positive response from them has proved more challenging given how the market is now, so until I get a response I'll be making more disney style sculpts to keep practicing.
While I am looking forward to continuing more discussion based on Alex's summary, this topic was originally meant as a place to loosen up and share the unconventional criticism we're all received through our careers.
But it can also be a good place to address useful criticism and also criticise the industry with the intent being to improve it.
"I also want to see how far I get with the lighting and presentation presets offered in character creator and unreal 5."
I think this sums up the issue. None of the criticism (my own or the ones formulated by interviewers) is to be addressed thanks to "tech". Downloading Unreal example projects will teach you nothing about striking presentations - actively studying painting, cinematography and photography will. But as said earlier I understand that it is a daunting task, seemingly impossible to juggle alongside learning everything that needs to be learned for game art.
It's the irony of game art : the job is incredibly technical, but for things to look truly great it requires very, very solid understanding and mastery or art fundamentals. I think you need to shift your thinking a bit and accept that by definition, you know less than you think you know ...
The Cammy and Maul you linked are of course excellent.
"Paprika can still be put through a cell shaded pipeline"
That's another example of "thinking that you know". Modern cel-shaded pipelines (ArcSys style) do not involve slapping a toon shader on a sculpted model, they involve building the model and textures completely differently.
Anyways ! Good luck.
I've been looking to adapt the guity gear style of cell shading.
Character creator comes with a cell shading solution and there are a few approaches to cell shading in Unreal 5 and Blender which can create visuals comparable to Arc System
Its lower priority since I don't know of any studio local to where I am that uses it, but certainly something to consider in the future.
I don't believe that I lacked humility when approaching Gamagori compared to Guts and I can appreciate how you feel about the face since that is likely what I initially felt about Cami and Maul but atleast for me it wasn't enough to dismiss them. (even if camy caused me several sleepless nights and my friend almost destroyed his controller in beating her up in street fighter)
Still despite how I personally feel, I really find it difficult to consider that Cami and Maul are undermining their source material or enhancing it.
While I was initially frightened by them, I felt that the only fair criticism for them was appreciating them for their own merits and my awareness of the source material did not impact this.
Like here is another Cami by Guillaume Tiberghien that I liked that didn't freak me out,
I really liked the animated presentation.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/49g1rY
That said I'm suddenly reminded of these cosplay videos,
they are both interpretations of sailor moon characters,
This one is closer to source,
and this one is uhm further from it...
Both stand out on their own merits and I feel that neither undermines or enhances the source material.
So before I consider discarding the Gamagori model, I'd like to put it through the workflow first.
Its very non destructive so I can certainly adapt the face directly through the tech, making any additional adjustments to increase the appeal.
I think the model would be a great case study in salvaging older work.
I feel its important to see how far the tech can work towards solving these issues since this is widely practiced in production.
Many of the example projects and presets were developed through an understanding of fundamentals so it really comes across to me as just a different approach to learning which has merit.
The Arcsys look (and that of modern cel shaded models in general) 99% come from the way the assets are authored (very specific modeling, UVs, textures, and manually edited normals). The material applied to it all is probably the most trivial and straightforward aspect.
Overall I think you simply need a lot of anatomy and traditional art practice to develop your eye much further, perhaps along with character model practice mimicking the art style of popular games much more closely. Tech is IMHO the least important thing to worry about, especially since a single software or two is all you need.
From a hiring perspective when it came to cell shaded art, I did get some feedback on what was expected in a porfolio from one local studio Cyberconnect 2 Montreal.
The studio is closed now, but I'd attended a showcase where I was able to interact with some artists that were visiting from Japan and the CEO himself.
So what they said is that as they use internal proprietary systems to do the cell shading for their characters, my focus should be on achieving those results with available methods.
It's really on me about how to manage this technically, but what was expected was a making close comparison.
If I didn't have this in my portfolio, that was okay too since my overall character art assessement would be based on the other characters I had, and I would have to do an art test.
They also had a showcase about how this process is in studio, where they showed the models without the cell shader. The character artist was expected to follow a workflow that allowed the cell shader to work appropriately. This was taught in studio.
The cell shader was set up by tech artists, cyberconnect 2 is small, so the artists work closely together and there is suffcient overlap in responsibilities.
Comparing with arc system works approach, I'd say cyberconnect 2's approach is quite different but it gets the result they want.
About the tech solutions, I like them because they are helping in achieving consistency across all my character models.
Previously I had to make topology manually and there was a lot more problem solving when it came to rigging and animation, while the tech solution automates all this so I can focus on character concept and design that I want to explore further.
The tools also match and many times surpass the workflow I used at EA, so that's makes them a great fit.
And I understand the skepticism it gets from artists who are more used to conventional methods.
The artistic solutions proposed here would certianly help with my overall development, in studio I found that difficult to put into practise.
Like one of my leads is a very good fine artist, but he is unable to use much of this knowledge in studio because of the way the workflow is set up.
Certainly his eye for realism is strong, but this was often limited by the technical aspects to get the models into game.
For example, we had to deal with a change of rig mid cycle to allow for better deformations in the shoulder area. Not that the previous solution was a detriment but it was necessary to accomodate new clothing solutions.
For my lead it could be better still, but the changes he requested couldn't be incorporated since applying them across a 200 or so characters across several generations just wasn't feasable. So the character pose is certainly not something Scott Eaton would agree on but its necessary to allow the motion system to function.
So while it was good to have that eye, applying it came down to several factors and tech seemed to dominate the result in the end.
Even with hair solutions, ideally it would be great to use a more standard solution for hair creation allowing a vast assortment of custom styles made from the ground up, but this just isn't possible.
So this would be limited to star players, and even here the process was heavily automated and hair was repurposed and modified.
Some styles just weren't possible given technical limitations for simulations which were set by the engine.
And not once did I have to create anything close to an anatomy study or even present it as a turnaround.
We were working on a schedule, and there is a process to follow, so presentation was limited to simple turnarounds that were submitted to a database with tasks assigned down the assembly line.
I didn't personally meet anyone who had done scott eatons anatomy course, their opinion was that it wasn't necessary for the workflow used internally but could certainly have merit on overall artistic development.
It certainly wasn't a factor when it came to being hired, all they really expected was for me have content that justified giving an art test.
I do think the course would help a great deal for making scale sculptures so I can certainly consider it then.
Thats really interesting how they do armor design at Bungie. I have used tools at the studio that refits the clothing automatically to the base geometry that can be then adjusted by tech artists using morphs. Kinda like an internal character creator for developers.
So there isn't any real anatomy work that artists have to do at sculpt level at all to resize and adapt clothing and the same tool is used for armors (in Dragon Age) though it was modified by the tech artists on that project for this purpose.
Its likely because of the volume of the work that needs to be done, that they created this system.
I'd still prefer to first see how much I can push my artwork with the workflow I'm using, before I consider Scott Eatons Anatomy Course, since getting this workflow down should help me tailor that course more appropriately to my needs.
This workflow allows me many ways to adapt and blend my anatomical work with scan geometry and morphs giving me a very seamless and non destructive workflow similar to the one I saw at EA.
My approach is more hybrid since I want to keep my anatomy details over the one provided by the body scan.
With Tarzan, Gamagori, Camy and Darth Maul I was more trying to address first impressions of cool or cringe.
I always look into the details and execution and I'm adapting my models towards that with the upgrades.
Personally I'm not a fan of contrasting or comparing artworks between artists, especially stylized work since it becomes very subjective even when objective aspects are assessed.
I wasn't really aware about how interpretations were assessed, I'm still getting very mixed persepectives on both the older works to this day, so I've been trying to push them through the workflow to see what I can improve.
Since you've done Scott Eatons class, do you have samples of work that showed how you improved after taking that course and how that positively impacted being hired?
I was aware that the course does have a postive effect on Interviews, not sure if having done that course should be seen as a validation of ones artistic anatomical knowledge but I do hope its knowledge is applied considerable at a workplace to justify its relevance.
At EA tech solutions are prioritised for anatomy, so not a lot of opportunity to apply anatomical knowledge, or rather it is applied to build plugins to automate the process.
I'd also be interested in learning more about what your portfolio was like each time you were hired at different companies during your career.
I have found that the portfolio matters less and less the more work experience and published titles you have, so there seems to be lot of flexibility on what impact a portfolio actually has during the hiring process.
For EA, the portfolio is only assessed for the minimal needed to give out art-tests for new hires.
Candidates applying for a second engagment or intermediate/senior positions would be assessed for revisions that they hopefully became aware about through their first engagement and have addressed in their portfolios.
While there was more budget and headcount to hire during the pandemic, their hiring metrics have remained consistent from what I learned speaking with coworkers and looking over their portfolios over several years.
With regards to how portfolios are assessed, I feel it really comes down to a lot of factors but some artists are really convinced about what it takes and the consensus seems to be to keep improving which is good in the long run for an artists overall development.
For example I had reservations about this perspective since I didn't find it being applied accross the board nor could I understand why matching a games screenshot was a prerequisite to being hired as a student.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deldrakewalker_ill-keep-this-post-as-succinct-as-possible-activity-7148391503977930752-6l-3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
I added my comments to the post at the link.
Appreciate your input about finding a balance between artistic and technical skill. I did feel that I was lacking in both and I am hoping they see improvements through the new year.
Come on ... No one is talking about "matching a game's screenshot" or it being a "prerequisite" (although that can be very cool, and certainly a way to get noticed). What this 👏 Senior 👏Character 👏 Artist is trying to say is that if an applicant isn't even trying to match the quality and style of the studio they are applying at, then they are simply demonstrating that they are not willing to put in the effort (on top of obviously demonstrating that they are not fit for the role). Now such an applicant has all the right in the world to not be interested in bettering themselves ; but they'll definitely be set aside in favor of the next applicant who *did* put in the work. It's as simple as that really, and IMHO that's what makes this kind of application/hiring process so very fair.
The kicker is that putting in this effort isn't necessarily hard, or even long ! It just requires a well-trained analytical mind and practical knowledge. The applicant being straight out of school or not is really quite irrelevant. After all, anyone can *try* - as even an attempt at bettering onself and ones work is better than nothing. And none of this requres any special software or complex technical knowledge anyways. One could very well start from a regular realistic elf model and rework it into a stylized/comic/anime version in a few days for instance. And then spending a day or so on presentation.
Now I can totally understand why one may not be familiar with this kind of logic. But the reasonable approach isn't to outright reject it because of this or that reason ; but rather, to try and understand what is being meant and why.
Lastly, while there *are* some asset implementation positions that do not require much art knowledge yet may still be referred to as "game art", that doesn't mean that this is the case accross the board. As mentionned earlier I think you are simply getting confused by labels and the meanings you personally assign to them. Perhaps try to erase from your mind terms like "junior", "senior", "artist" and so on, and simply consider the job openings for what they actually are - otherwise you may end up spending a lot of time on some not-so-productive things. And in the meantime, there is perhaps someone else out there laser focused on bettering themselves, who you might be competing with for the next job opening you'll be aplying to ...
Anyways - some aspects of all this are quick to do (reworking a sculpt, doing clean presentations) ; while some others do take years of preliminary study to grasp or master (like getting a feel for how anatomy influences armor design). So there's nothing wrong with being at this or that stage really, things take time.
And lets say that nikhil cannot reach that quality no matter how hard he tries, either because he just doesnt have the drive or the vision or whatever. But he can make "fine" characters rapidly and adjust to big changes with little downtime. I have a hard time imagining many game development scenarios where nikhil (in this imaginary example) is not a better employee than the higher tier artist.
His take seems to come from his personal experience given a comment he had posted,
I don't think Del understood that what I meant was meeting minimum requirements to become eligible for art tests for entry level positions.
He also works at Naughty dog which is famous for their perfectionist game art standard and the inhumane crunch they put artists through to achieve it,
https://kotaku.com/as-naughty-dog-crunches-on-the-last-of-us-ii-developer-1842289962
In that sense he seems a perfect fit for that studio, and that emphasizes why it is important to do ones due diligence and research studio workflow and culture before applying.
Its a good persepective to analyze and I hope he addresses these two comments that were made, in addition to my question,
" if the studio makes multiple games and the listing doesn't mention the game you'd be working on should your portfolio contain examples of work matching the quality of game art for every game license that is publicly known to be in development?
How would you account for games being developed under NDA's?"
Its difficult for me personally to consider that an applicant's artwork not matching screenshot is simply demonstrating that they are not willing to put in the effort or demonstrating that they are not fit for the role.
I can see that angle if comparing applicants purely based on their artwork is the primary metric used, which I have found to not be the case in every studio/project.
Speaking from experience, once applicants were hired having fulfilled the minimum requirments, they were expected to put in the effort and I didn't meet a single candidate that wasn't willing to.
The art pipeline was engineered that anyone meeting this minimum could do the work no problem and there was variable opportunity to develop skillsets within this framework.
Like it would be weird for anyone applying to work at a company, and requiring to learn internal workflows to be unwilling to put in the work, unless of course they had personal challenges such as learning disabilities which were accomodated for.
Also its a fact that published games are patched and remastered so its a perpetual work in progress as far as budget allows, matching a game screenshot shouldn't necessary suggest a candidates willingness to put in effort.
In fact it might suggest more conformity, lack of adaptability and likelyhood to be easily frustrated by changes.
For example if I had to apply to a studio who's work is not AAA standard by quality metrics, should I downgrade my application to better fit their current offerings, or provide them with work that could upgrade their overall quality on future games.
Should I match Watchdogs E3 or Watchdogs PC release ultra settings, or Watchdogs modded with Source Textures Collection/Nextgen Graphics Overhaul 2?
In that sense, the matching of a game screen shot feels like a minimum, rather than some measure of exceptional skill.
But I still don't see any cohesiveness in it being used as a metric about an applicants work ethic.
There really needs to be more due diligence on a candidates capabilities, but I'm also feeling that the roles being offered are highly exaggerated in their relevance and responsibilities at many studios for marketing purposes.
Matching a game screen shot could be considered a minimum at some studios, but thankfully atleast in my experience it was seen as something to aspire to not something that absolutely decided if the candidate would be hired or not.
And yes I share your perspective on improving ones art and also understand what it takes to do so, I just don't agree with the bravado seen around it which doesn't seem to match the reality of hiring processes and the layoffs that follow.
It concerns me that its very possible that seniors and art directors may be hindering the hiring process by setting unrealistic and unreasonable standards for candidate portfolios when it might be more prudent and efficient to set healthy minimums that meet professional quality requirements without the egotrip that accompanies it.
Absolutely this and its horrible.
I would think that for someone applying to any studio, they would try to make their art match what they've seen in game, but there's more to a candidate that their art, and using artwork as the sole determinant and putting it across so succintly without saying that this is clearly not how it is across the industry seems to have more to do with the pride he feels for being where he is in his career than the actual reality.
Atleast in my experience, studios I worked with valued a variety of skill levels in candidates, and this is assessed through a portfolio review for miminum requirements followed by art test and interview.
You didn't have to match the games art to be eligible for an art test but meet the minimum metric which wasn't exactly low, but provided a good idea of what to expect from a candidate's performance in an art test.
So more along the lines of,
"While this candidates portfolio and art test don't match the photo reference 1:1 there is a clear demonstration of skill and ability that can be further developed through adapting it to our internal workflow and supportive team environment."
And the availabilty of a position was impacted by headcount and budget which could make candidate requirements more flexible, so you may spend months trying to perfect your art to apply, but it wasn't really necessary and regardless of the quality you hit you'd have to start at the beginning like everyone else starting out since it really is just business in the end. (don't want to spend more than the market rate unless you really need to)
Its very true about speed and adaptablitiy being more applicable.
High end quality is good to aspire to, but it isn't realistic when you end up with situations like this,
And certainly not something to burn yourself out on.
My motivation to improve wasn't because I wanted to stand out in the hiring process, I would do this when employed as well and while I hope that this translates to job satisfaction and studio productivity I am content that I am learning from experience and raising awareness to assist other artists where I can.
At the moment what I have to work with are examples of candidates who took Scott Eatons course and have seen that initiative recognised when they applied for work at studios.
Though the relevance of the actual course work to the workflow at the studio still eludes me when I look through their professional portfolios.
So far I'm seeing its relevance as a talking point and artists who have done the course have had positive experiences so that is a good sign.
How did the coursework help in your professional work? I saw you did the course 10 years ago, so it might have changed since, do you feel the skills you've learned are relevant to the workflows you currently use at Facebook/Meta?
I would be interested in seeing more of your character work at Facebook/Meta and your experience as a character artist there.
I am aware of meta avatars which had very mixed reception
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2022/08/21/mark-zuckerberg-upgraded-his-metaverse-avatar-after-the-entire-internet-laughed-at-him/?sh=7ba7d31d35a3
and the real time photorealistic avatars that they are using for VR videoconferencing which I am more interested in from a technical standpoint.
https://www.9news.com.au/technology/photorealistic-avatar-of-mark-zuckerberg-interviewed-in-metaverse/da6cbd38-8173-40e2-a92f-526b6742db08
For the moment, I wanted to bring the workflow I'm using to a point where I can modify Scott Eatons course to use what I learn with the workflow.
I am aiming to rejoin EA on the same project, and with the disney models I had meant to approach Gameloft who had approved of my artwork for a character artist position when they reached out to me at EA.
My working responsibilities at EA as an intermediate - senior character artist on FC would be to use their toolset and workflows on scanned player head geometry. I would ideally be placed more on finishing tasks but these would still be vetted by more senior artists.
EA was also incorporating newer toolsets that I would have to learn, the approach is very tech-art oriented so similar to the workflow I'm using now.
With Gameloft I'm not too sure about how they are approaching character art work on disney dreamlight valley but they do use an avatar character creation tool which is very similar to the tool I'm using. I don't currently know if they also create the licensed characters in studio and I'm mostly going on the portfolio of the artists currently working there and will contact them when I have updated and added to my disney style artwork.
Certainly I see merit in taking that course for my personal development but I'm still skeptical if the investment is relevant at the moment.
I do intend to to write to Scott Eaton and ask if the course would benefit me once I've upgraded my pieces. This would help me tailor the course to my needs.
The way things stand, I can't really compete with candidates that have more published titles and more industry experience, so I'm working with the network I've built at EA and trying to tailor my portfolio to their request.
I would also have an opportunity to take the course when I'm hired and have the company cover the cost if its considered relevant.
I do feel comfortable with making photoreal models, and the workflow and toolset has really help improving my efficiency in upgrading the models I have and creating new pieces.
What I am still finding challenging is in redesigns of proven concept art in my interpretation (such as the Gamagori model) and how they are perceived by other artists.
Certainly I take these on as experiments, it gives me more freedom to further refine the workflow I'm using and I do value the feedback I receive about the developments.
I also understand that these models certainly won't appeal to everyone, (like the Cami model) but taking the initiative still has merit.
I don't feel that the models in their upgraded state would be a detriment to the overall merits of my portfolio, but I will have it curated by artists working at the studios I'm applying to before I make an application.
It will likely have a more realistic focus, with disney style since that's relevant to the companies and projects I want to be a part of.
I think you're getting too caught up with proprietary tools and "workflows". Those things can vary drastically between studios, and can be picked up quickly. Don't worry about tailoring the course to your needs, that's not what this is about. At the end of the day this is about creating appealing characters, and no amount of knowledge of tool sets or workflows or pipelines is going to help you with that right now. None of the critiques you are getting have anything to do with any of that. This is about a foundation in the fundamentals of art and design. If you want to make characters, that starts with anatomy. After that, I would suggest working on your presentation, and for that learning about composition, lighting, and photography would be a good next step.
Though I am updating my work based on feedback I received from senior artists at EA.
I would of course apply first with EA since I have the best chance of being hired there.
The senior artists that evaluated my portfolio did so with the understanding of the workflow used at the studio and the kind of responsibility I would be assigned.
The workflow at EA is relevant to the workflow I'm using to upgrade my work.
Any other anatomy shortcomings I am addressing using feedback I'm receiving but I am working to prioritise efficiency using tech-art solutions that replicated the processes I used at the studio.
I don't believe that I haven't met the baseline level of skill, or else I wouldn't have been hired at EA since the art test assigned absolutely relied on reaching that skill.
I didn't have any automated tools to do the art test back then.
But the senior artists at EA are sensible not to reject a candidate just because they are seeing blind spots in anatomy work within a candidates portfolio.
Or they realise that these can be addressed through the job because they were hiring me at an associate level and I am required to learn. Actually everyone had to learn to adapt regardless of the level they were at of what their knowledge of fundamentals was.
The studio was very accomodating on this aspect, no one was expected to hit the ground running and junior hires were required to have the basic minimum knowledge of fundamentals as a foundation that could be built on.
For the intermediate/senior level that I am applying for now, it was recommended that I look into solutions to improve lighting, shaders and presentation.
I felt it was efficient to find workflows that can make creating character art more efficient.
There was also an emphasis on using scan geometry and hi resolution scan maps that I have added into my workflow.
Any other issues can be addressed on the job. A portfolio assessment isn't 1:1 with the responsibilities at work. So regardless of how optimal my anatomical knowledge might be, from a technical standpoint there are ways to address it depending on what is needed.
They do not want to see anatomy studies as part of portfolio work, though it is something I want to do more on during my free time.
But the way the workflow is set up, there is very little anatomy sculpting required.
Its more tweaking and adjustments and its very feedback based at every level, so while they do require me to make any corrections without much oversight, the process at work does allow for it and is used on a case to case basis.
This is also followed at EA, I did get to experience and learn about workflows used on Dragon Age, Apex Legends and the Iron Man Project at Motive all of which are based on achieving a balance between artistic quality and production efficiency which I've tried to adapt into my workflow.
EA also prioritises and invests heavily into tech solutions and outsourcing. For artists in junior to intermediate level, I wouldn't be making the decisions you specified, meaning while I would certainly use the knowledge I have to work at the expected level, there is considerable oversight from senior artists and the final result is very determined by more than just the quality the art arrives at.
I'm certainly not a complete beginner at anatomy, I've already crossed that threshold.
Thanks for your suggestions on scott eatons courses, I will try to incorporate them into my learning depending on the time I can spare.
I did do tutorials on anatomy fundamentals from ryan kingslien which added to my foundational knowledge of anatomy from dental school, so I have an understanding on both the artistic and scientific aspects of human anatomy with a focus on facial anatomy.
I'm not using these tools to do away with having to do anatomy as part of the character creation process.
Like if you see the update on Gamagori here,
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2788357#Comment_2788357
I did have to use my anatomical knowledge to update the anatomy, what the tool does is make any decisions on form/shape/proportion/silhouette very flexible so I can choose to address any discrepencies as the need arises.
The workflow I followed before required me to get a near final highpoly sculpt and if I found errors in form/shape/proportion/silhouette while I was creating my low poly, I would have to go back to the sculpt and make required changes.
I felt this wasn't very efficient and this tool allows any changes at any part of the process to be very seamless and non destructuve.
It also provides several presets and anatomical morphs that I can use to fine tune the result which is very similar to the plugins I used at EA.
It also helps me assess in real time how a slight change can dramatically affect the look, I just found a more efficient way to approach these changes to create work that certainly is a step up from what it used to be.
Appreciate your work at Sanzaru games, I wasn't aware of the studio though I had heard of the titles you've worked on.
I do hope the artwork there can be carried over towards Meta avatars since when I saw you worked at facebook thats the first thing that came to mind.
Brandon.LaFrance said: I didn't understand what you meant by "no amount of knowledge of tool sets or workflows or pipelines is going to help you with that right now"
The toolsets and workflows were created with the objective of creating appealing characters, so using them does require an understanding of the fundamentals of art and design.
They have also been built so that this knowledge doesn't have to be exceptional or rather as you use the tools you can increase your knowledge of fundamentals.
Depending on feedback, I can make any adjustments more seamlessly.
Like if I was told to adjust the mouth, or eye distance and finer aspects of facial geometry, I can do that instantly. I don't have to go into the sculpt and adapt it.
I can blend the result I've created with exisiting presets and really fine tune the result.
The workflow also provides a seamless integration of facial rigging, animation and expressions regardless of the adjustment made.
It saves a lot of headache in going back and forth between multiple softwares and I highly recommend this workflow to other artists.
Of course the knowledge of conventional workflows is necessary to use these tools optimally, and I do have that knowledge, hence I am able to use it the way I do.
I chose to refine my character art creation process because I had the drive to be better.
Just because I use the tools doesn't mean that I lack anatomy knowledge.
If anything finding ways to patch any holes using relevant tools is an exercise in resourcefulness and its good that many AAA studios understand this to make their game development pipelines more efficient and transferrable between candidates with different skill sets.
It really shouldn't come across that I am throwing out advice from anything I've said.
I'm not saying that scott eatons course isn't useful, its just not something I consider high priority at the moment for the objective I've set.
And yes I am certainly optimising myself to get back to EA but that isn't at the expense of my overall skill. I recognise that I will have the opportunity to develop that skill throughout my career.
I'm not sure how many character artists applying at the level I'm aiming at have a rock-solid core knowledge of anatomy or how relevant that really is within a portfolio assessment.
Atleast from my experience its good to have a balance of anatomical knowledge and utilize any tools available for a more efficient workflow.
If my anatomy knowledge is assessed by seeing scott eatons course as a prerequisite which is then valued in the hiring process as a form of vetting then certainly I would likely lose out on opportunities but I'm not sure how fair this is.
Atleast I can say with absolute certainly that during my time at the studio interacting with character artists between various projects, there was considerable diversity between artists knowledge and execution of anatomy in character art.
No artist considerered themselves as exceptional, but they were recognized for their skill level with regards to the responsibilities they would assigned and by and large the teams worked together to achieve the final result relying on each others strengths and identifying any weaknesses.
The only artist I could say were exceptional were the artists at Keos Masons, since as outsourcers they had complete control on the key character art requested by the studio at every step of the character creation pipeline. It is a level I aspire to but I'm not sure how realistic that objective is given my current situation.
EA certainly would love to have a dedicated artist at that skill level, though it is more cost effective to outsource this request from a budget perspective.
To your analogy about choosing between artists with different skill sets, if I had to choose between two artists, one having knowledge of hand painted realistic skin and the other a hybridised workflow using hi resolution scan maps for skin painting, both artists are valuable depending on the job and the time and budget alloted to the task.
I can certainly value both those skills and the different approaches it takes to achieve the final result and would budget accordingly.
Its great you are taking the sculpting course, I'm sure it will be useful to you and look forward to hearing more about your experience.
I'll give a hint. It's not because the artists are slacking, that's for sure
https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/
You may need to purchase a morph pack that targets specific musculature if you want to be really precise.
Certainly working with scans does entail a lot of cleanup, but it also comes with taking creative liberties depending on relevance, for instance will the audience be aware of these discrepancies depending on their anatomical knowledge and how does implementing those changes impact the reception of the product.
I can certainly address these areas, at some point I do want to create realistic sculptures, so refining my anatomical skill for that task could certainly use more training which the resources suggested here should be good for.
I'm looking for a mid-senior role at EA, and these changes are being made with the requirements mentioned by the senior artists and leads I worked with.
For other studios, I can see them being more particular on these details and I still do hope that they consider my overall profile and portfolio when they decide if they should proceed with my application, but I'll get it vetted by character artists at the studios I am applying to first to better understand their needs.
One approach I liked at severals studios was that they would have a model evaluation QA team apprise a model that had less than obvious discrepencies to understand if it impacted the play experience, so in that sense if the discrepency wasn't impactful to the reception, they would still give the model the go ahead since the priority was the product and revisions could be made in future patches as budget became available.
There can be issues with this approach (for example with Mass Effect Andromeda), but it really depends since the financial targets they hit depend on several aspects of production and marketing.
I feel it is important to think in this bigger picture given the corporate nature of the game art industry
The advice is appreciated, I would prefer to approach the changes more precisely and apply the tool in making them. The model still needs a few skinning adjustments so that would help me see how these anatomical issues affect deformation.
The model does use scan geometry and is exaggerated in some areas, I'll compare the areas you identified with other scan geometry examples to better understand where the shortcomings are.
I don't fully understand how the professional success of a senior artist would correlate to anatomy advice with regards to the hiring process.
Several senior artists were laid off last year regardless of the success they had gained so I am continuing to evaluate how much video game studios actually value the performance, skill and experienceof their employees when it comes to running a business and shipping a product.
It doesn't impact my motivation to improve on anatomy, I think that is a lifelong endeavor and I'm just looking prioritse what to focus on when it comes to being hired at a studio.
You need to delete everything that is not the new Samourai honestly and make more new pieces
Its really not helping you showing these 2018 characters, its just hurting you
Make a couple new ones and your page is in good shape but you gotta let go of the old stuff
@Alemja hit the nail on the head with "Appealing art triumphs all, process is adaptable and greatly varies by studio and by project."
Make great work , get the job. Simple.
Employers want good fundamentals because even the best tools are worthless if you don't understand what you're trying to make.