Relevance of Scott Eatons Anatomy for Artists course for getting hired into the game industry.
polycounter
When it comes to anatomy, what is the best way to approach learning it to come across as competant to a studio?
I am exploring this question more from a hiring perspective where the art reviewers judge your character art competancy by comparing to concept art/photoreference and do any further scrutiny through an art test.
Please see this post I had made analysing different artists competancy of creating the character Gus Fring from breaking bad for a bit more background.
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2790688#Comment_2790688
I made this post when I was still working on my portfolio with a focus on being hired at my previous workplace which has now worked out exactly as I planned and perfectly aligned to the time frame I gave myself (the full duration of Employment Insurance payments that funded the training and program I invested into to improve my skillset)
I haven't done scott eatons anatomy for artists, but my portfolio before the latest update was seen as sufficient to get hired at associate level.
I've recenly been rehired as a character artist at EA and following my experience I'm re-evaluating the merits of scott eatons anatomy for artists course from a game industry hiring perspective since I will be mentoring other artists.
I did study anatomy in dental school, also dissected cadavers with a focus on facial anatomy so my background prior to learning anatomy as part of video game development is very different from most character artists learning from life drawing and other resources.
After my first engagment at Electronic arts, when I was done my contract I sought to improve not only my anatomy skills but also to incorporate the studio pipeline in my workflow, i.e using body scans and geometry wrapping with plugins and scripts that replicated tools at the studio.
The program I used from Reallusion was more affordable than scott eatons anatomy for artists online course ($199 for Character Creator 4 vs $795 for the full enrollement for anatomy course)
and using character creator 4 I was able to use it to streamline my workflow in the same way they do at Electronic arts and allow much finer control to get the models looking right and more importantly functional for rigging and animation.
I found the approach I used, to be a great way to learn and practice a full production pipeline,
Scott eatons course from my understanding does provide a foundation to learn anatomy by observation and practice and he also goes into detail about muscle origin, insertions and form and how they look and mold the body in motion, all good skills and he is a great teacher.
But I am having a hard time justifying budget being allocated to Scott Eatons course at EA because the end result of the course is already achievable and has been for several years through plugins and tools built by tech artists that are very similar to Reallusions tools.
So I felt that Scott Eatons Anatomy for Artists on site masterclass,
https://www.scott-eaton.com/anatomy-for-digital-artists
would be more applicable, but I am concerned that this would basically amount to bringing scott eaton in for a talk, he comments on model issues and adds them to his "gallery abominate" we all have a laugh and the next game will likely have the same issues because many times a combination of budget and deadlines mean that it becomes imporantant to accept "good enough" and then provide any improvements through updates and patches.
I'm just not sure if its comparable to say budgeting for a gnomon subscription and while there are many positive reviews, seeing how studios are quite willing to lay off even the best artists, does this level of anatomical knowledge and understanding really matter to the end product?
All our art is being packaged as a product to be sold to gamers, what matters are sales and that is being achieved no problem regardless of what Scott Eaton might think about abominable anatomy in the games.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-sports-fc-24-beats-expectations-leads-ea-to-q3-growth
So by understanding this reality, what exactly is the foundation in anatomy expected from a candidate to successfully be hired as a character artist?
Should they all do scott eatons anatomy for artists course, I've yet to meet anyone at EA who has done this course.
If its any consolation the studio does provide learning resources that are comparable (subscriptions to courses available to the public)
So currently I am unable to get the studio to justify paying for the course, since they do deem the learning resources as sufficient and I agree, but for seniors that stress this particular course, is it justified, or is it just better for candidates to apply elsewhere where hiring teams don't use Scott Eatons course to gatekeep the position?
Is it fair to assume that unless you are starting at the absolute basics and have exhausted all other avenues to learn anatomy (free and paid like gnomon schools dvds) scott eatons anatomy course is what you make of it?
Am I right in thinking this way?
I feel I made the right call, and the approach I used got me rehired as a character artist with a promotion at particularly challenging time in the game industry.
Now that I am mentoring other character artists I'm not sure if I should advise them to take up scott eatons anatomy for artist course.
Also I'd love to do posed sculpts and anatomy studies but unless I'm doing statues for environments, why would a recruiting team hire me using that as a determination that I understand anatomy?
And do you ever really fully understand anatomy, at work there is a generous amount of time alloted to figuring things out as a team, so everyone needs to coordinate and refresh their knowledge to collectively arrive at the best possible outcome to ship a product.
That said I did also apply at other studios and was given a standard boiler plate rejection so not sure what those rejections were based on. I'd like to know but with the way things are its very difficult to get to the bottom of this and probably better to make the most of the opportunity you're given.
I am exploring this question more from a hiring perspective where the art reviewers judge your character art competancy by comparing to concept art/photoreference and do any further scrutiny through an art test.
Please see this post I had made analysing different artists competancy of creating the character Gus Fring from breaking bad for a bit more background.
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2790688#Comment_2790688
I made this post when I was still working on my portfolio with a focus on being hired at my previous workplace which has now worked out exactly as I planned and perfectly aligned to the time frame I gave myself (the full duration of Employment Insurance payments that funded the training and program I invested into to improve my skillset)
I haven't done scott eatons anatomy for artists, but my portfolio before the latest update was seen as sufficient to get hired at associate level.
I've recenly been rehired as a character artist at EA and following my experience I'm re-evaluating the merits of scott eatons anatomy for artists course from a game industry hiring perspective since I will be mentoring other artists.
I did study anatomy in dental school, also dissected cadavers with a focus on facial anatomy so my background prior to learning anatomy as part of video game development is very different from most character artists learning from life drawing and other resources.
After my first engagment at Electronic arts, when I was done my contract I sought to improve not only my anatomy skills but also to incorporate the studio pipeline in my workflow, i.e using body scans and geometry wrapping with plugins and scripts that replicated tools at the studio.
The program I used from Reallusion was more affordable than scott eatons anatomy for artists online course ($199 for Character Creator 4 vs $795 for the full enrollement for anatomy course)
and using character creator 4 I was able to use it to streamline my workflow in the same way they do at Electronic arts and allow much finer control to get the models looking right and more importantly functional for rigging and animation.
I found the approach I used, to be a great way to learn and practice a full production pipeline,
Scott eatons course from my understanding does provide a foundation to learn anatomy by observation and practice and he also goes into detail about muscle origin, insertions and form and how they look and mold the body in motion, all good skills and he is a great teacher.
But I am having a hard time justifying budget being allocated to Scott Eatons course at EA because the end result of the course is already achievable and has been for several years through plugins and tools built by tech artists that are very similar to Reallusions tools.
So I felt that Scott Eatons Anatomy for Artists on site masterclass,
https://www.scott-eaton.com/anatomy-for-digital-artists
would be more applicable, but I am concerned that this would basically amount to bringing scott eaton in for a talk, he comments on model issues and adds them to his "gallery abominate" we all have a laugh and the next game will likely have the same issues because many times a combination of budget and deadlines mean that it becomes imporantant to accept "good enough" and then provide any improvements through updates and patches.
I'm just not sure if its comparable to say budgeting for a gnomon subscription and while there are many positive reviews, seeing how studios are quite willing to lay off even the best artists, does this level of anatomical knowledge and understanding really matter to the end product?
All our art is being packaged as a product to be sold to gamers, what matters are sales and that is being achieved no problem regardless of what Scott Eaton might think about abominable anatomy in the games.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-sports-fc-24-beats-expectations-leads-ea-to-q3-growth
So by understanding this reality, what exactly is the foundation in anatomy expected from a candidate to successfully be hired as a character artist?
Should they all do scott eatons anatomy for artists course, I've yet to meet anyone at EA who has done this course.
If its any consolation the studio does provide learning resources that are comparable (subscriptions to courses available to the public)
So currently I am unable to get the studio to justify paying for the course, since they do deem the learning resources as sufficient and I agree, but for seniors that stress this particular course, is it justified, or is it just better for candidates to apply elsewhere where hiring teams don't use Scott Eatons course to gatekeep the position?
Is it fair to assume that unless you are starting at the absolute basics and have exhausted all other avenues to learn anatomy (free and paid like gnomon schools dvds) scott eatons anatomy course is what you make of it?
Am I right in thinking this way?
I feel I made the right call, and the approach I used got me rehired as a character artist with a promotion at particularly challenging time in the game industry.
Now that I am mentoring other character artists I'm not sure if I should advise them to take up scott eatons anatomy for artist course.
Also I'd love to do posed sculpts and anatomy studies but unless I'm doing statues for environments, why would a recruiting team hire me using that as a determination that I understand anatomy?
And do you ever really fully understand anatomy, at work there is a generous amount of time alloted to figuring things out as a team, so everyone needs to coordinate and refresh their knowledge to collectively arrive at the best possible outcome to ship a product.
That said I did also apply at other studios and was given a standard boiler plate rejection so not sure what those rejections were based on. I'd like to know but with the way things are its very difficult to get to the bottom of this and probably better to make the most of the opportunity you're given.