Uncoventional porfolio criticism

NikhilR

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 -

NikhilR

Alemja said:

I'm noticing there is a lot of fixation about what EA does, their process and getting hired there again... however there is always a possibility, due to things outside of your control, like timing or them deciding to go with outsourcing in favor of contractors, that means it just might not work out. Games has been hit hard by the layoffs that are STILL happening, it's no longer a feast like it was during the pandemic, where budgets were growing, teams were growing and there was a lot more space to hire people... We're back in the famine-era of the before-times, probably even worse because of all of the people who were let go... There are even more people trying to get the few jobs that are out there, and the pool doesn't seem like it's getting much bigger. It seems kind of unwise to put all of your eggs in on basket, and fixate how one company does things, when we're trying to tell you that: hey you have some core skills that seem like they could use some polish that are more art-centric than tech, it's probably worth investing in those skills if you want to give yourself the highest chance of getting employed, again especially if the EA thing doesn't work out.

You also really have to remember that most of the time you're seen by a recruiter first. There are some out there with a good amount of knowledge of the process, but most of them really aren't as artistically attuned to the process as you would think, and they certainly don't know all of the nitty-gritty of the tech details. You have to be able to create work that visually hits a bar that is good enough to pass you along to hiring managers, then you usually get people who are looking at your process in more depth (not always because of time)

Appealing art triumphs all, process is adaptable and greatly varies by studio and by project. I worked in outsourcing previously with so many different projects, some caring about technical details way more than others (some literally did not care so long as there was geo in the right places). However no matter which project I work on they want you to make the thing look closest to the concept or reference that you're handed, that is a hardcore fact at the end of the day. I think focusing on the artistic side and learning to let your process and tools be adaptable will greatly benefit you.

It isn't a fixation, since I did work there I have a more concrete understanding of what their needs are, so I'm tailoring my portfolio and process to match their requirements first.
It is a difficult time to enter the industry with all the layoffs, certainly the portfolio matters more than before and I'm trying to achieve a balance between the tech solutions I use to make my process of making art more efficient and also improving on the art itself with feedback.

Thankfully the tech I'm using and the way I'm using it has allowed this across all the artwork I'm upgrading. 
For some of the pieces, I can say they are final more easily, such as zhou yu and khan model. 
With good presentation, I think the portfolio should be good enough for the level I'm applying to just with those pieces, for the moment I am focusing on their hair and rigging for posing. 

For the gamagori piece, your feedback in the other post really was very valuable. While I did feel that the clothing and armor wasn't cohesive with the model as it is now, I hadn't though of the clothing and armor in the way you described, so very grateful for the input. 
Its helped me think along redesigning the armor particularly on how it all fits together and getting into the nuts and bolts of its fabrication.
I think this will overhaul the appeal of the model as a whole.

I'm still not keen on doing Scott Eatons courses at this time. I do recognise shortcomings in anatomy and I would prefer to address them specifically rather than doing an entire course since I don't believe I'm that far off from the fundamentals with the knowledge I currently have to work with.

I wasn't rejected on that knowledge when I was hired, and I did verify how important anatomy is to game production at senior levels atleast across EA's studios. They really do approach it with a flexible mindset and are quite willing to allow discrepancies through so long as it doesn't impact the game as a whole. 

I do feel I would benefit me to take the course once I am looking to create sculptures for 3D printing, so I am thinking its better to delve more into that approach at a later time.
I'm also interested in Scott Eatons tailored courses for film and game studios, 
https://www.scott-eaton.com/category/anatomy
I am assuming that these are more focused towards game production, so I'm keen on EA (or any studio I join) facilitating this with manager approval. (Scott mentions one for Respawn)
It is good that studios are investing in this model.

it does beg the question though as to why a class like this is necessary at a studio.
If the artists hired there have been vetted for being strong in fundamentals as is being said here, would they really require such a course considering the knowledge they already have which is what supposedly got them the job in the first place?

The art test was quite critical in the hiring process at EA, more so than the portfolio which was evaluated for the potential performance at the art test.
I likely won't have an art test for my second engagement unless its deemed necessary, for other studios I do expect an art test, though if I'm rejected for portfolio reasons, I hope to get that information from art reviewers at the studio.
Either way I will continue to improve on work with the feedback I'm receiving here. 

I've come to accept that rejections happen for a variety of reasons and I'm definitely not agreeable to the mindset that getting rejections or being ghosted is solely because of portfolio shortcomings.
I didn't believe this before and my experience at EA and interacting with artists internally who worked with other studios established that there are several other factors and the initiative to improve artwork should remain the perogative of the artist to better themselves regardless of what the outcome is from a career perspective. 

So currently I am taking my time improving my artwork before I feel ready to apply. 

NikhilR

Francois_K said:

Are you actively trying to get a job or the opposite?

@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.

I'm not sure if it really is that simple, though I feel its important not to get too obsessive about it given how game art production actually seems to be.
I found the appeal and process of art to be variable across studios and projects.
Their reception was also variable.
Like the emphasis on anatomy knowledge as fundamental to artistic perfection is markedly diffirent when you witness first hand how flexibly it is approached at in game production and how much the audience actually cares about it as part of the larger product.

I strongly believe that dismissing an artist as weak based on deficiencies of a single artwork is counterproductive.
Scott Eaton has a whole section called Gallery Abominate,
https://www.scott-eaton.com/2013/anatomy-at-sony-santa-monica

where he includes art that falls short of the expected standard and is seen in published game productions, the work of old masters, his own work, the work of his students and in work that has critical acclaim.
The purpose of this gallery isn't to dismiss the artists and make them nuke their portfolios, its so that we can be judicious about identifying variations and not only see the variations as detriments.

Like each of those pieces passes quality control and I don't even know if their audience was able to see deficiencies, but here in game art there is a way higher standard being pushed on portfolios that belies the actual reality of what it actually necessary to meet a bar for hiring purposes and what actually is considered as the acceptable minimum in game production.

Its important that portfolio assessments are done keeping in mind studios requirements and the actual value an artist can provided to established workflows. 
So while its important to see greatness in work, its necessary to be judicious about any standard set and a good workplace understands this because in the end what matters is that a product is being published for profit which might necessitate making calculated compromises

NikhilR

Shrike said:

Looking at the portfolio, this is really too old
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

Oh totally, it is why I am upgrading each piece.
I'm also being mindful that some pieces will have to be set aside depending on how I feel about the upgrade, meaning I'll continue to work on them more and not include them just yet.

I've yet to curate my portfolio, but it will likely have the upgraded Samurai (zhou yu) and khan characters with more focus on their game readiness alongside an improved presentation for a realistic character art portfolio,
I had some accessories in mind, a cape for zhou yu and khan has a hood that we wears on Ceti Alpha 5 and also wears a starfleet uniform as a jacket which should help increase their impact.
But the application to start will be made with these two characters (with hair since at the moment they are bald/using stock hair from the tool)

There is one new piece realistic piece I hope to finish, though it might go well into the period after I've applied, maybe I'll keep working on for the rest of the year.

And a seperate section with disney models, primarily sculpts and maquettes since I'm noticing that for a studio like gameloft there isn't a hard requirement to show game ready disney characters.
I'll likely add the gamagori model here to show game readiness as an example. 

When it comes to case studies showcasing improvements, I'll either present this at the very end, or make a post here on polycount and add a link in the artstation presentation leading to it.
I'll be very specific about what is changed. 
Like if I have upgraded gamagoris head and the clothing has minimal upgrades I will mention this clearly.

poopipe said:

I think it's far more interesting to question the standards you're being held to than to try and meet them - I also enjoy pissing into the wind. 

Employers want good fundamentals because even the best tools are worthless if you don't understand what you're trying to make. 

I find the standards very variable, so I try to do my due diligence before I apply through research and networking.
Knowing fundamentals was how I could use these tools, and honeslty they really help with making asset production a lot less stressful.