Techinicality vs Creativity
polycounter lvl 17
Hey, I don't say or show much of my work here, but I thought I'd be smart and ask a question instead :P
Portfolios of various cg artist shows very often only the modelling and texturing skill, from time to time the resume also includes a list of various software.
My question is, how much of a leap is it from actually creating the model and make work in game? The algorithm when creating the media itself is very often overcome by most artist, as I could see it, but then there are tons of things to think about before the model actually goes in game. There is a big difference between creating the asset for a game and creating an asset for...any game I'd guess. I might be a bit blurry, but I've recently learned how little I really know of the gap between the editor to the engine itself. It hit me how much it really causes extra work to redo parts that was done in a manner that created errors/not so good results in the engine.
Any thoughts about this?
Portfolios of various cg artist shows very often only the modelling and texturing skill, from time to time the resume also includes a list of various software.
My question is, how much of a leap is it from actually creating the model and make work in game? The algorithm when creating the media itself is very often overcome by most artist, as I could see it, but then there are tons of things to think about before the model actually goes in game. There is a big difference between creating the asset for a game and creating an asset for...any game I'd guess. I might be a bit blurry, but I've recently learned how little I really know of the gap between the editor to the engine itself. It hit me how much it really causes extra work to redo parts that was done in a manner that created errors/not so good results in the engine.
Any thoughts about this?
Replies
There's always other important things, for example laying out your UVs correctly if you want to get a character in Unreal 3, or knowing that the Source engine doesn't support mirrored normal maps.
Researching the whole process before you start building is obviously the way to go. The technical side of exporting/setup is always a drag, so doing a simple test like exporting a few basic textured and rigged cubes is a good idea. It familiarises you with the procedure and lets you iron out the kinks before you invest a lot of time in doing something "for real". Resources like the Valve Wiki and the DVD extras that come with Unreal are really helpful, so use them.
Find a good game-specific forum with knowledgable people on it (this is hard in itself- there's a lot of misinformation out there) and spend a couple of hours searching through the tutorials and FAQs.
Basically, when you start modelling, do it with a target engine in mind and research the hell out of it before you make a single polygon.
BTW, just got back from my first visit to Sweden - that's a hell of a nice country you've got there
Seems like you might be asking how important it is to demonstrate tech-know-how in your portfolio.
The easiest way for me to judge an applicant's tech ability is whether their assets are being shown in a game engine or game editor, rather than just a render. At the least this demonstrates the ability to get their work thru a pipeline. Other tech things I look at are how the polygons are laid out, what the UV layout looks like, how it's shaded (strange dark spots or smoothing errors), general fit and feel.
But first and foremost, artistic talent holds the most weight. If you don't pass that bar, I won't bother with evaluating your tech prowess.
If you have the art skill, being taught what buttons to smash isn't that hard. But only knowing what buttons to smash and having to learn art skill, well thats a hard investment for a company to make as it may not pay off.
Sometimes it feels that the integration of the model is more tedious than actually creating it. But as you guys said, it's a matter of learning the engine you work with.
Thanks for your reply guys, much appreciated.
But I think for entry level artists who tend to concentrate on the how-to basics and think that basic knowledge is the only thing that will land them a job is still a bad road to take. Of course of they decide to go tech artist route then they'll need to work on a different skill set. But hopefully they aren't being fooled into thinking that the only thing a tech artist does is import/export models.
Personally I don't see too many first time artists walking into tech artists positions, they are normally born out of necessity and over time as a certain artist gets comfortable with the pipeline and integrates into the company becoming a bridge from one dept to another. Its hard for a first time artist to walk into that kind of a roll when it often requires so much growth from the ground up.
I would agree but I also see things changing. The technical artist and technical animator job is becoming much more widespread, whereas there were way fewer technical artist jobs even a few years ago. It is, indeed, a difficult position to hire someone inexperienced for, since it requires an extremely broad knowledge base but a very specific skillset, just not something most people have out of college. It is also a position that is often at a bottleneck, so you don't want someone untested or inexperienced there.
But I also see it changing, somewhat. I was hired at my first job as a character artist, and within a couple weeks I had about made my last regular asset I would make for six months as I moved into a technical role. And with just six months experience I was hired in a technical position at my current job (granted, I had a good recommendation from Ben Cloward). We just hired an environmental artist who shone because of his technical skills (and really the bosses wanted him for his technical abilities and because some people here worked with him when he was an intern). And we have another environmental guy who was almost hired as a technical artist at another company out of college (though tbh I don't think he would have been qualified). Schools don't teach, or even encourage, the technical arts, which is a bit of a shame since I know many people that have or will go into them eventually. I think as the industry continues to grow and mature (how many old-timers still don't see the point in technical artists...), and as the technical arts become more accessible, this may slowly change.
I've worked with Radiant making some Doom III assets, UT2 and TS2 and propose that you can find some common ground when transferring your 3d objects to the engine. For me I see that the lighting and available shaders differ alot from engine to engine, how do you guys feel about that?