The competition is the major factor imo - as ppl said, just getting better and more active will make the it 4 u
Major mistake is that sometimes junior guys apply only at huge studios for aaa stuff. Sometimes smaller studios are much easier to get in, but they are often ignored by beginners.
Just wondering, since you mention beginners ignoring smaller studios. Where does one look for jobs at smaller studios? Does Gama Sutra include those jobs?
joopson: I found my first studio gig on craigslist, entry level character artist at a small (20 ish people) studio in bellevue. The jobs subforum here occasionally has positions like that too.
And i got to work on casual games :P
Nevertheless, my 1st experience in a good ambiance which decided my future passion for gamedev ...
Tho i think smaller studios will have less budgets and therefore less likely to hire someone with relocation. Usually its good for locals.
The whole point was that if u have one in your city its worth trying despite many ppl will think that its "not cool"...
That's not right and you know it. It's just as disingenuous to ignore the issues and simply cover your ears and say "it's your own damn fault!" than it is to blame everyone else but yourself. I also call BS on the "studios aren't getting qualified applicants" because there are plenty of qualified people out there with lots of experience who have been out of work for a while.
Sorry to dig this up from so long ago, but just to re-iterate, from my exp and perspective, It IS right. I've seen a LOT of character art tests in my career so far and its an overwhelming bias to one side im afraid.
Many of the unqualified applicants arent unqualified in terms of experience or education - hell some of them have 10 + years and degrees.... but they ARE unqualified in artistic ability.
Usually the applicant would be instantly compared to the other team members of a similar position, If the artistic capability gap is too large, they just wont be able to do what we need them to do - to me, that equals being unqualified artistically - all other things become irrelevent.
There are jobs absolutely everywhere freelance and in-house. Despite the number of layoffs happening there is also hiring going on all over the place... Some lucky places will even make a position for you if youre good enough!!!
And this is not aimed at the OP but just in general, IF your having difficulty as an ARTIST in todays economy, failing interviews or job applications - You could probably put it down to one of the following:
1) You're not artistically qualified for the position your applying for.
2) Your personality needs work.
3) You're asking for too much $$$.
4) Too much legal hassle for the company to relocate you.
How to gauge 1) ? look up the folios of the artists of a similar level to the position your applying for, put them on your 1st monitor, put your folio on the second monitor. Does it look like you can do what they do ? Be honest.
If you can, and you made it to the interview point, but then got knocked back it could possibly be any of the 2, 3 or 4.
If you make it to the interview stage, its usually to see how well you get along with people. If you failed there its highly likely you raised a few red flags in your interview with things you said, maybe you were too negative about your last place of work, maybe you were just an obnoxious or pompous dick.
Its not all doom and gloom, just because the negative threads overwhelm the positive ones 10 to 1 doesnt mean thats a indicator of how the industry is. The guys who are kicking ass and gettin it done, dont have time to post about how fucking awesome it is thats all - they are way too busy enjoying it.
I'ts just like the 6 o'clock news, its 59 minutes of carnage death and mayhem, terrorists and oil spills and 1 minute of space exploration and anything else thats actually positive or useful for advancing mankind.
Hazardous, while I do agree with you on all points - I still do keep stumbling on portfolios that make me think "What the hell? Just *how* did he/she get hired, exactly?" where the quality is slightly above-average at the very best. Meanwhile the consistent thing we are told that you won't be hired unless you can go toe-to-toe with the pros (which I agree with) - and sometimes that can be a tad embittering.
Hazardous, while I do agree with you on all points - I still do keep stumbling on portfolios that make me think "What the hell? Just *how* did he/she get hired, exactly?" where the quality is slightly above-average at the very best. Meanwhile the consistent thing we are told that you won't be hired unless you can go toe-to-toe with the pros (which I agree with) - and sometimes that can be a tad embittering.
Sad reality - friends who get them in :P
Good when it happens in a fair way, but sometimes ppl get hired trough friends unfairly...
Btw, just remembered, I heard of cases when a recruiter wasn't able to figure out that thumbnail images in the portfolio are clickable to view larger image. The response was "your images are too small, we don't see a damn thing." Heard from a friend of mine :P How about a fair treatment there lol.
Codemasters have displayed an interest in bringing entry level artists from all over the world to their office in Malaysia. Sure, the pay's bad compared to the industry in the west, but over there it's a pretty good living.
I tried to bring 5 graduates from my uni to Malaysia, but we got nailed on visa issues. Sort those issues out and it'd be a good way into industry, treat it as a working holiday.
I'm coming up from a big trip on the downside, this thread helped my outlook a lot. Thank you everyone. I get discouraged seeing all the 'layoffs at x' posts, and think "oh wow, what chance do I have now?" and ended up backing off from doing art for a while.
So now I'm trying to decide if I should stick with going to college this fall, comp sci my way towards being a tech artist, or focus on making better art?
Some good tips in this thread. I just got a new job a week after being laid off from Vigil, and I had 2 offers (1 I took) and 2 other studios who were interested. Maybe I was just super aggressive with my emails and such, but there is def. not a shortage of slots to fill, my guess is that most studios are being very picky, since they don't need a new artist, but it'd be nice to eventually fill that empty spot in the corner.
Hazardous, while I do agree with you on all points - I still do keep stumbling on portfolios that make me think "What the hell? Just *how* did he/she get hired, exactly?" where the quality is slightly above-average at the very best. Meanwhile the consistent thing we are told that you won't be hired unless you can go toe-to-toe with the pros (which I agree with) - and sometimes that can be a tad embittering.
You're assuming that whatever is on the public folios you see is a) all they have to show b) the same thing they showed to the employer c) current.
How about taking the outsourcing jobs?
Codemasters have displayed an interest in bringing entry level artists from all over the world to their office in Malaysia. Sure, the pay's bad compared to the industry in the west, but over there it's a pretty good living.
I tried to bring 5 graduates from my uni to Malaysia, but we got nailed on visa issues. Sort those issues out and it'd be a good way into industry, treat it as a working holiday.
If that's a good idea... local wages in this part of the world, with the exception of tiger states like Singapore, South Korea, Japan, HK are very very low, even for "skilled" workers. You'd be living like a local and I'm not sure if the average Malaysian's lifestyle is comparable with the average EU citizen's lifestyle. I highly doubt it. Only recommended for adventurous people. Otherwise better look for outsourcing jobs in eastern Europe. Not only is it culturally closer to home, you might also be able to afford visiting your family/friends once in a while.
I try to keep that in mind Kwramm, but the logical extention of the folio being out of date is that they got originally hired (before all the industry experience) based on that old work, which is still quite sub-par when compared to contemporary assets in the industry at the time.
I try to keep that in mind Kwramm, but the logical extention of the folio being out of date is that they got originally hired (before all the industry experience) based on that old work, which is still quite sub-par when compared to contemporary assets in the industry at the time.
could be, but then again you do not know the circumstances.
The guy could have been just the best who was applying at that time. Sometimes you have to fill a position and often there is no perfect candidate. Then you have to take whatever you can get and, with some help, hope the guy get his act together in time. If he does, who cares about the old folio? He's making assets which make your AD happy and that's what's counts. He's probably then taking this work (with or without permission) and shows it to the next prospective employer at some point. That's how it goes.
(note: this is the reason why you should apply, even if you think you may not cut it! You might still just be the most employable candidate available).
Also, he might be the cheapest, quickest available, no visa-or-relocation-cost attached guy available, because often HR has a word too in hiring. In my job I heard a few times that some guys are awesome but that their salaries are just not within the budget - find someone else and train them up to the level you need. Sorry, best art doesn't always win outright. (*)
I worked with many talented artists in the last years and there's many who don't have a public folio or a very outdated one, and they're still in the industry working on AAA titles. I think you're not doing yourself a favor looking on other folios going "aww, that's not fair!".
There's soooo many factors coming into this once you consider how hiring really works. The mantra "best artist gets the job" which is repeated very often, is true in general, but it does over-simplify how hiring really works.
p.s. I think the sensible thing is just to remove your online folio if you don't have time to keep it updated. It does more harm than good if you don't care for it.
(*) related to this, I prefer hiring mediocre artists with potential over divas. Since I know about art, I can more easily help someone with talent to make use of it, rather than changing their personality (I ain't no psycho doc). And having a well oiled team of regular and motivated artists beats a disorganized bunch of super-stars any day.
Just curious. How do we measure the rate of progression of skill? It's obviously the consensus here that to be a worthy hire you must do art on par with the pros, but how attainable is that goal? Arguably it is as many people here are examples, but the pro has the advantage of years of work, including what they do in their job.
Basically if somebody does what Hazardous said and puts up some pro art and tries to become as good, how long does that take? Clearly it needs to be done, so will the amateur become a pro in half, or quarter the time the pro did, or take just as long, perpetually leaving themselves only as qualified as the pro 'used to be?'
Heh, I suppose it's an allegory for the fact this industry hardly has any form of "trainees."
your real training is your first job in the industry
Also there's many levels of pros. Usually new artists get the smaller jobs - i.e. building props, touching up completed characters, doing support characters, moving on to bodies but not doing the faces of characters, and so on. Ideally when you hire someone you want to think "yeah, the guy could do that and re-inforce the team with that so we can have the better people on the team work on something else".
If you art is, for comparison, better than the main character of the studio's flagship game, then you'll be hired for sure, and not just as junior, but as regular artist. But you can aim lower at that (and most people end up lower than that, if they want to or not). If there's a round to ramp up, your art will be compared to the juniors (or regular artists) already on the team, not the lead artist with 5 AAA titles under his belt and 10 years of experience. (if you're that good, you'll probably apply somewhere else anyway and ask for more money than they're willing to pay for the job you're applying).
Also when hiring you want to hire people who "fit the job". Overqualified people tend to leave as soon as they find something better if you don't have a job waiting for them. HR doesn't like fluctuation.
For juniors you look for potential, attention to detail, possible roles he could fill once he shows up at the studio's door. You want to put the guy on a task that you have, you don't want to have to invent tasks for the new guy. And once it's the first day in the studio, the learning really begins. Most people would agree they learned more on their first job than in college, or by themselves or anywhere else.
After the first job, there's the 2nd knockout round: continuing employment. For most people the first job is a real eye opener (just ask around how many people think their first folio really sucked badly ) and they keep working on their folio, adding all the new knowledge they gained. Those folks will continue in the games industry. The others who stay on the stop won't - or they're lucky enough to actually get tasks that give them some folio ready assets on their 1st job.
Just wondering, since you mention beginners ignoring smaller studios. Where does one look for jobs at smaller studios? Does Gama Sutra include those jobs?
I've been wondering that lately.
A good place to look is at apps. Go to Apple's and Android's stores and look for cool 3D games. Next to the game it displays who the developers are. Use Google, find out about the studio and contact them looking for a 3D position and mention how much you love their game(s).
Sure some of them will be tiny indies, but a lot aren't.
Also there are now a lot of browser based games out there.
A lot of them are using Unity and for a beginner I would consider learning that and creating assets for it for the lower spec mobile/browser market. It's a good way to get a foot into the games industry.
Those markets and the whole free to play thing means that there are a lot of new small studios appearing. But best to find out about them by doing your research. Don't expect to stumble across an advert they might have posted.
If that's a good idea... local wages in this part of the world, with the exception of tiger states like Singapore, South Korea, Japan, HK are very very low, even for "skilled" workers. You'd be living like a local and I'm not sure if the average Malaysian's lifestyle is comparable with the average EU citizen's lifestyle. I highly doubt it. Only recommended for adventurous people. Otherwise better look for outsourcing jobs in eastern Europe. Not only is it culturally closer to home, you might also be able to afford visiting your family/friends once in a while.
Yep, it's a pay cut, it's no Singapore, but it's no China either. The living standard we were offered was better than what I'm currently dealing with in London and I'm not kidding. I did my research (I have plenty of Malay family and we have Polycounters working there) it's a brave choice, but it's no where near as bad as you'd think.
There's a lot of these developing countries that give a good living for a pay cut - Middle East, India, Malaysia, Philippines, South America. Do your research and it might be worth it. The world is developing fast.
But yeah, don't treat this as a first choice unless you're adventurous / know what you're doing. Home is always easiest.
depends where you're coming from I guess. As EU citizen, I wouldn't work for local wage. Not only might you have troubles building up any sort of saving that's of use for you when you return to your home, you're also giving up healthcare coverage, pension coverage and unemployment coverage when you return home. Depending on your home country, you may have nothing of it when you return. (i.e. read up if your country's social system has bilateral treaties in place) So you want to build up a financial cushion and invest in a private pension scheme.
Even in SGP the local wage niveau is lower than in western EU standards. Which is okay while you're there, but may bite you if you come back when you realize all the money you made there is worth squat at home. Which sucks when you have to get yourself established in the UK/US/EU at a new job (not good if you have to borrow your rental deposit from your new employer right away )
If your family is in Malaysia, I guess it's good. Otherwise you may just have troubles spending EUR 1000,- just to visit your home in Europe/US once every year. At least it might rip enough of a hole in your pocket to make the whole endeavor not worthwhile. Well I guess you're the first person from a western country (who's not an amateur English teacher) who'd go for that. Actually I know Malaysians and SGP people who come to Shanghai or Beijing for better work prospects in the gaming industry.
Seriously, I'd recommend anyone else to rather consider jobs in eastern europe, if you're from the EU. Asia ain't that fun if you're low on cash. It's worthwhile though once you established yourself and have those AAA production skills that are needed here.
probably depends where they're from (locals/foreigner) and what their position is. I just have a hard time believing anyone would bring in western foreigners for junior positions. I mean what's the benefit of that? You can get kickass artists in all those countries without the visa / relocation / language hassle. The only thing all those countries lack are people with previous AAA experience who can share this with the local artists.
How to gauge 1) ? look up the folios of the artists of a similar level to the position your applying for, put them on your 1st monitor, put your folio on the second monitor. Does it look like you can do what they do ? Be honest.
Unfortunately in my experience, the artistically unqualified people are usually completely unable to tell the difference between good work and their work...
Unfortunately in my experience, the artistically unqualified people are usually completely unable to tell the difference between good work and their work...
odd, when it comes to my real job in audio, im the other way around the bar i set for my own work, is a lot higher, than the bar i set for others before i consider something good.
Hazardous, while I do agree with you on all points - I still do keep stumbling on portfolios that make me think "What the hell? Just *how* did he/she get hired, exactly?" where the quality is slightly above-average at the very best. Meanwhile the consistent thing we are told that you won't be hired unless you can go toe-to-toe with the pros (which I agree with) - and sometimes that can be a tad embittering.
It could be the case that it's a junior artist that doesn't do well without direction - so once they got an art test they rocked it. I've seen plenty of people with great portfolios totally choke on art tests.
I just have a hard time believing anyone would bring in western foreigners for junior positions. I mean what's the benefit of that? You can get kickass artists in all those countries without the visa / relocation / language hassle. The only thing all those countries lack are people with previous AAA experience who can share this with the local artists.
Codemasters KL were looking at us western graduates because we had good English and could transfer back to the headquarters in the UK if we were good, it was a kind of year's training camp.
Also I think they have trouble getting good blood in locally, Malaysia is not a populous country and the arts are pretty side lined - they've been hiring from the surrounding countries so they're already used to visa hassels, plus there's pretty strong brain drain so there's always new demand.
But yeah, this is all moot. It's something I know CM are looking at but it's not been tried as far as I know - it's too late for my group, most of us have already found jobs in the UK.
So yeah I agree Asia is not a good choice for everyone in the EU, but it is a possible choice, and depending on your roots and companies involved it may have other benefits.
Funny. You got more about this Codemasters project? I'm curious what drove them to Malaysia in the first place if they couldn't find the people there. Usually China (after Taiwan and Korea), and recently Vietnam, are the places to go. I wonder what their reasoning was.
I heard living in Malaysia is pretty ok (better Chinese food than in China lol), but that's mostly from expats with higher than average wage.
Otherwise, if Eastern Europe: Crytek is in Budapest (beautiful city!) and Epic is in Warshaw. I think there's also in-sourcers in Kiew (more hassle since not EU) and in other former states. I totally recommend doing some research if you're a graduate looking for a job. Also it's a great learning experience to move to another country. Plus, in some of those places, the hiring criteria are lower because they just need to get people on board to begin with.
It could be the case that it's a junior artist that doesn't do well without direction - so once they got an art test they rocked it. I've seen plenty of people with great portfolios totally choke on art tests.
Funny. You got more about this Codemasters project? I'm curious what drove them to Malaysia in the first place if they couldn't find the people there. Usually China (after Taiwan and Korea), and recently Vietnam, are the places to go. I wonder what their reasoning was.
I heard living in Malaysia is pretty ok (better Chinese food than in China lol), but that's mostly from expats with higher than average wage.
Malaysia and the UK have special agreements, being a former colony and all. I'm pretty sure there was more incentive in Codemasters setting up there than just cheap Malays and good English.
Also funny fact in Malaysia, the more you pay for food, the worse it is. Best meals are found at the £1 to £5 region. It's a common tourist mistake
Otherwise, if Eastern Europe: Crytek is in Budapest (beautiful city!) and Epic is in Warshaw. I think there's also in-sourcers in Kiew (more hassle since not EU) and in other former states. I totally recommend doing some research if you're a graduate looking for a job. Also it's a great learning experience to move to another country. Plus, in some of those places, the hiring criteria are lower because they just need to get people on board to begin with.
I've never really looked at Eastern Europe - I always thought the competition there was more than I can handle. I'll definitely give that some research - thanks!
Who spends £5 on a meal in Malaysia - I ate for a whole day in Penang for less than that
Haha, you'll pay up to £5 in the touristy food courts under the Petronas Towers for a meal, but yeah, go any higher than that and the quality just drops.
I'll stick to my mamak restaurants and street food thank-you
I think if companies are struggling to find local artists they should voice what the expect at their local universities. I remember when I graduated the dean made a speech to visiting industry people, encouraging them to have a say in whats taught.
Its badly needed in UK universities when you consider that people who want to be artists have to spend so much time working on reports when they could be working on a portfolio. There are still so many academic rules that are given more importance over practical creative work. At the end of the day, no one employing artists is going to want to sit there reading your 80 page dissertation.
If the universities really knew what the industry wanted, it would put a big dent in those stubborn youth unemployment figures.
I don't think universities like to hear "oh, you're useless, just shut down"
Well that's a bit extreme lol, not everything they do is useless and that's pretty much a given. The point standing is if there were more universities that are in sync with industry, there would be more skilled graduates who are more employable.
My school actually had a small conference to discuss what industry pros thought should be taught. They invited people from Blizzard, Firaxis, Vicious Cycle, etc and a bunch of people from other universities along the east coast. Basically, once the discussion got started the people from the various schools kept telling the industry guys that they were wrong. They said that students shouldn't specialize because that limited them, that they need a wide range of knowledge, and that students didn't need to learn how to get jobs but "to learn how to learn." Clearly that must be right since only about 5 people from the last 3 graduating classes are employed in their field.
My school actually had a small conference to discuss what industry pros thought should be taught. They invited people from Blizzard, Firaxis, Vicious Cycle, etc and a bunch of people from other universities along the east coast. Basically, once the discussion got started the people from the various schools kept telling the industry guys that they were wrong. They said that students shouldn't specialize because that limited them, that they need a wide range of knowledge, and that students didn't need to learn how to get jobs but "to learn how to learn." Clearly that must be right since only about 5 people from the last 3 graduating classes are employed in their field.
Yeah that's pretty much a pattern with education in the UK. I remember in 2003 when I first went to college right after normal school it was impossible to find subjects that were related to game art. The closest thing was a BTEC in graphics which was basically art GCSE (paint this still life, make a clay bowl and then do some embroidery):thumbdown:
Its probably not the tutors, its the bureaucrats that design the curriculum, they don't believe young people know what they actually want to do even if they have been saying they want to be an environment artist since they were 15.
So they decide to go for this system where everyone is taught in these long and expensive broad subjects that don't prepare them for an industry that expects people to specialize.
Yeah that's pretty much a pattern with education in the UK. I remember in 2003 when I first went to college right after normal school it was impossible to find subjects that were related to game art. The closest thing was a BTEC in graphics which was basically art GCSE (paint this still life, make a clay bowl and then do some embroidery):thumbdown:
Its probably not the tutors, its the bureaucrats that design the curriculum, they don't believe young people know what they actually want to do even if they have been saying they want to be an environment artist since they were 15.
So they decide to go for this system where everyone is taught in these long and expensive broad subjects that don't prepare them for an industry that expects people to specialize.
I think it's a double edged sword, but being in the industry for a couple of years I agree. A highly specialized course is great for short term benefit: finding a job right away. A broader ranger of subject pays off in the long run. Given that many people in college still don't really know what they want and where their real strengths lie, it's a good idea to expose them to many different things. And during your life in the industry it will pay off that you heard about them already.
I think it's a double edged sword, but being in the industry for a couple of years I agree. A highly specialized course is great for short term benefit: finding a job right away. A broader ranger of subject pays off in the long run. Given that many people in college still don't really know what they want and where their real strengths lie, it's a good idea to expose them to many different things. And during your life in the industry it will pay off that you heard about them already.
didn't know that. But brits do have some small advantages in commonwealth countries.
Well I'm just speaking from personal experience, I knew I wanted to do this from an early age and I never wavered on that through school, college or university. Before I got to uni I was too often forced to do subjects that won't impress my current employer but it was required to impress universities to give me a place. So its such a wide flank before you get to this point.
I believe that broad subjects are perfect at school level, beyond that is running the risk of distracting some people from their goals and also forcing education to be longer and more expensive than it needs to be.
I can't help but think how much of a benefit to the economy it would be if youth unemployment was tackled by making sure what people learn in education is more impressive and relevant to industry, so they don't graduate only to be on welfare a few months later.
Of course you're indeed right that there are pro's and con's though, maybe it just needs to be more balanced with an even share of broad subjects and focused ones.
I'll have to agree with Kwramm on this one, and not just because I'm currently attending university either. There's simply a lot more to it than getting the piece of paper or even the job. But of course the job takes a high priority, in that regard I agree with Justin
I don't think universities like to hear "oh, you're useless, just shut down"
Well that's the thing, if they taught what was relevant they would not have to shut down, because then what is taught would be of value to the industry.
I can't help but think how much of a benefit to the economy it would be if youth unemployment was tackled by making sure what people learn in education is more impressive and relevant to industry, so they don't graduate only to be on welfare a few months later.
Very true. But I think focusing is something that is better for the student to do, rather than teachers forcing it on them (although there are countries where there are focused Universities and un-focused ones - Germany and Austria have a system like this).
It's easier for the student to say "yeah I like modeling/animation/whatever" than the uni pushing it on them. It's also easier if someone with a wide overview of subjects, such as an university, exposes a student to as many different things possible, because the student himself may not be able to do this, because of lack of knowlege of the width and depth of the industry.
What's the problem here? The student has to pick something early. The student has to specialize on his own as much as possible before graduation and the uni has to help once the student know what he likes best. And this is where many colleges fall short, from what I hear from people who have or are studying. My college certainly fell short of this, even though I feel they did a great job showing me as much of the industry as possible ...and yes, it took me quite some time to find the subject I liked best
I think colleges should continue exposing the students to as much different areas as possible, but at one point they have to say "now focus, we want you to get a job after you graduate!"
Very true. But I think focusing is something that is better for the student to do, rather than teachers forcing it on them (although there are countries where there are focused Universities and un-focused ones - Germany and Austria have a system like this).
It's easier for the student to say "yeah I like modeling/animation/whatever" than the uni pushing it on them. It's also easier if someone with a wide overview of subjects, such as an university, exposes a student to as many different things possible, because the student himself may not be able to do this, because of lack of knowlege of the width and depth of the industry.
What's the problem here? The student has to pick something early. The student has to specialize on his own as much as possible before graduation and the uni has to help once the student know what he likes best. And this is where many colleges fall short, from what I hear from people who have or are studying. My college certainly fell short of this, even though I feel they did a great job showing me as much of the industry as possible ...and yes, it took me quite some time to find the subject I liked best
I think colleges should continue exposing the students to as much different areas as possible, but at one point they have to say "now focus, we want you to get a job after you graduate!"
I agree with what you are saying but i think what Vio is trying to say (or at least what i would say after attending the same Uni) is that the specialisation doesn't really happen early enough. For example in third year i've still had to do skinning, animation, offline lighting + rendering and a ton of report writing rather than being able to focus on purely environment art which is what i decided i wanted to focus on during 2nd year.
Obviously to give people a taste of everything it does take a lot of time that's fair enough, and spreading it out over 2 years seems to be about as fast as it can be done without skipping parts. But then it should be possible to purely focus on the chosen area during final year if the student has picked a speciality.
Very true. But I think focusing is something that is better for the student to do, rather than teachers forcing it on them (although there are countries where there are focused Universities and un-focused ones - Germany and Austria have a system like this).
It's easier for the student to say "yeah I like modeling/animation/whatever" than the uni pushing it on them. It's also easier if someone with a wide overview of subjects, such as an university, exposes a student to as many different things possible, because the student himself may not be able to do this, because of lack of knowlege of the width and depth of the industry.
What's the problem here? The student has to pick something early. The student has to specialize on his own as much as possible before graduation and the uni has to help once the student know what he likes best. And this is where many colleges fall short, from what I hear from people who have or are studying. My college certainly fell short of this, even though I feel they did a great job showing me as much of the industry as possible ...and yes, it took me quite some time to find the subject I liked best
I think colleges should continue exposing the students to as much different areas as possible, but at one point they have to say "now focus, we want you to get a job after you graduate!"
True, it is the students' responsibility to an extent, but not completely. I went in thinking I wanted to do animation and the first 3D class the school taught was a general class covering everything. By my second year, I knew I preferred modeling, but jokes on me, they offer 1 modeling class and it focuses on NURBS modeling in Maya, so it's impossible to specialize. They have no one who has even used Zbrush and they just hand you Mudbox and tell you to figure it out. The closest I got to a course that taught environment art was a grad school class on "level design" (they don't know what a level designer does) where I had to teach the instructor what a light map was and he failed me on a project for using static meshes rather than all BSP.
I went to grad school knowing I would have to teach myself a lot, except between being forced to take useless research, business, and engineering classes, I didn't have time to work on my portfolio. The work I was able to do in school was so rushed that it was poor quality. So, a year later, I'm still trying to get my work to a level where I can get a job.
I don't think that students need to be spoon fed everything and it should be their responsibility to push themselves. However, If they are going to charge such insane tuition fees then schools should make effort to hire competent staff, keep them up to date on current techniques and technologies, and put some real effort into helping the students get a job after graduation. Many of them start game programs because they will bring in students, but they have no idea what they're doing and they can only hire from a pool of local candidates who have never had an industry job.
As I said, only about 5 students from the last 3 graduating classes have gotten jobs in their field and only 2 of those are in the game industry. I would like to think that my experience was an exception, but at the East Coast Game Conference, my school had a far better showing of work than any other school there and most of the people I talked to thought we were actually doing well above the norm.
I know I'm a little bitter from having to live on my family's charity for so long, but there really is no excuse for what some of these schools do. With the amount of money I had to put into student loans I shouldn't still be teaching myself the basic things need to get a job after 2 degrees. Yeah, my portfolio needs work and that's something only I can do, but it's their job to provide a foundation and they basically took my money for nothing.
Sorry for the rant, but this seriously pisses me off.
I don't think that students need to be spoon fed everything and it should be their responsibility to push themselves. However, If they are going to charge such insane tuition fees then schools should make effort to hire competent staff, keep them up to date on current techniques and technologies, and put some real effort into helping the students get a job after graduation. Many of them start game programs because they will bring in students, but they have no idea what they're doing and they can only hire from a pool of local candidates who have never had an industry job.
While I do agree with this, it must be said that this isn't easy. When we've often talked about the kind of staff we think should work at these schools we have images in our heads of the very people who work in the industry. Probably some guy we get along with and has years of experience to turn into valuable wisdom for young students. That can sometimes be pretty unrealistic methinks: sometimes the old saying of "Those who can - do, while those who can't - teach." actually applies. Those kind of artists may very well want to stay in the industry, and have no interest in teaching. Even when they do, just because they are great artists doesn't mean they make great teachers, it's hard to make the stars align. Of course that's no reason to stop trying to get relevant up-to-date teachers and curriculum.
On another note, a lot of people are rubbishing university for not providing specialisation. But specialisation is not the be all and end all. Also people here are not making a distinction between Technical Education and Theoretical Education, two fields I believe should be separated and contained within a students overall education. As artists it is understandable to prefer technical, which many universities do not focus on. With technical, students learn 'how' to be good artists, but not 'why.' I'll leave it up to you guys to decide what matters to you, as I'm sure some would retort with "the job is why."
Technical education is where we should get to specialise: it's all about the ins and outs and actual skills. Theoretical should teach us how to better think, approach problems and situations, question standards etc etc. Here broard knowledge should be enriching. To me, a focus on technical over theoretical is part of the reason so many of young amateurs folios being filled with space marines and orcs.
Universities are trying to train people worth hiring, but the industry wants tools worth hiring. Since the universities are failing to deliver what the industry wants, those of us who don't get a job are left with the impression that everything we learned is valueless, and I mean c'mon! So many really looks at it that way, admittedly the learning does not scale with what we pay, but I don't get to be as empathic about that in my situation, I apologise in advance. But to throw away any part of past experience as valueless? Even I learned valuable things from dead-end jobs that made me who I am today.
I don't think its that people are saying uni is useless, I certainly wouldn't, I had some fantastic tutors who often come here. The problem is they don't make all the rules and there are still academic traditions that might not fit so well in today's world as they used to.
The thing is, a lot of people are finding ways to get into this industry without going to uni, you could quite easily do that if you were a regular on polycount from age 16 for example. There is so much to learn here and its totally free. In other industries there are also shifts to vocational training, apprenticeships and so on where they get total focused education and they often have a lot of success when they finish but they already know people in the industry and know how to do the job to industry standards.
Replies
The competition is the major factor imo - as ppl said, just getting better and more active will make the it 4 u
Major mistake is that sometimes junior guys apply only at huge studios for aaa stuff. Sometimes smaller studios are much easier to get in, but they are often ignored by beginners.
I've been wondering that lately.
And i got to work on casual games :P
Nevertheless, my 1st experience in a good ambiance which decided my future passion for gamedev ...
Tho i think smaller studios will have less budgets and therefore less likely to hire someone with relocation. Usually its good for locals.
The whole point was that if u have one in your city its worth trying despite many ppl will think that its "not cool"...
Thanks for the help.
Sorry to dig this up from so long ago, but just to re-iterate, from my exp and perspective, It IS right. I've seen a LOT of character art tests in my career so far and its an overwhelming bias to one side im afraid.
Many of the unqualified applicants arent unqualified in terms of experience or education - hell some of them have 10 + years and degrees.... but they ARE unqualified in artistic ability.
Usually the applicant would be instantly compared to the other team members of a similar position, If the artistic capability gap is too large, they just wont be able to do what we need them to do - to me, that equals being unqualified artistically - all other things become irrelevent.
There are jobs absolutely everywhere freelance and in-house. Despite the number of layoffs happening there is also hiring going on all over the place... Some lucky places will even make a position for you if youre good enough!!!
And this is not aimed at the OP but just in general, IF your having difficulty as an ARTIST in todays economy, failing interviews or job applications - You could probably put it down to one of the following:
1) You're not artistically qualified for the position your applying for.
2) Your personality needs work.
3) You're asking for too much $$$.
4) Too much legal hassle for the company to relocate you.
How to gauge 1) ? look up the folios of the artists of a similar level to the position your applying for, put them on your 1st monitor, put your folio on the second monitor. Does it look like you can do what they do ? Be honest.
If you can, and you made it to the interview point, but then got knocked back it could possibly be any of the 2, 3 or 4.
If you make it to the interview stage, its usually to see how well you get along with people. If you failed there its highly likely you raised a few red flags in your interview with things you said, maybe you were too negative about your last place of work, maybe you were just an obnoxious or pompous dick.
Its not all doom and gloom, just because the negative threads overwhelm the positive ones 10 to 1 doesnt mean thats a indicator of how the industry is. The guys who are kicking ass and gettin it done, dont have time to post about how fucking awesome it is thats all - they are way too busy enjoying it.
I'ts just like the 6 o'clock news, its 59 minutes of carnage death and mayhem, terrorists and oil spills and 1 minute of space exploration and anything else thats actually positive or useful for advancing mankind.
Sad reality - friends who get them in :P
Good when it happens in a fair way, but sometimes ppl get hired trough friends unfairly...
Btw, just remembered, I heard of cases when a recruiter wasn't able to figure out that thumbnail images in the portfolio are clickable to view larger image. The response was "your images are too small, we don't see a damn thing." Heard from a friend of mine :P How about a fair treatment there lol.
Codemasters have displayed an interest in bringing entry level artists from all over the world to their office in Malaysia. Sure, the pay's bad compared to the industry in the west, but over there it's a pretty good living.
I tried to bring 5 graduates from my uni to Malaysia, but we got nailed on visa issues. Sort those issues out and it'd be a good way into industry, treat it as a working holiday.
So now I'm trying to decide if I should stick with going to college this fall, comp sci my way towards being a tech artist, or focus on making better art?
You're assuming that whatever is on the public folios you see is a) all they have to show b) the same thing they showed to the employer c) current.
If that's a good idea... local wages in this part of the world, with the exception of tiger states like Singapore, South Korea, Japan, HK are very very low, even for "skilled" workers. You'd be living like a local and I'm not sure if the average Malaysian's lifestyle is comparable with the average EU citizen's lifestyle. I highly doubt it. Only recommended for adventurous people. Otherwise better look for outsourcing jobs in eastern Europe. Not only is it culturally closer to home, you might also be able to afford visiting your family/friends once in a while.
could be, but then again you do not know the circumstances.
The guy could have been just the best who was applying at that time. Sometimes you have to fill a position and often there is no perfect candidate. Then you have to take whatever you can get and, with some help, hope the guy get his act together in time. If he does, who cares about the old folio? He's making assets which make your AD happy and that's what's counts. He's probably then taking this work (with or without permission) and shows it to the next prospective employer at some point. That's how it goes.
(note: this is the reason why you should apply, even if you think you may not cut it! You might still just be the most employable candidate available).
Also, he might be the cheapest, quickest available, no visa-or-relocation-cost attached guy available, because often HR has a word too in hiring. In my job I heard a few times that some guys are awesome but that their salaries are just not within the budget - find someone else and train them up to the level you need. Sorry, best art doesn't always win outright. (*)
I worked with many talented artists in the last years and there's many who don't have a public folio or a very outdated one, and they're still in the industry working on AAA titles. I think you're not doing yourself a favor looking on other folios going "aww, that's not fair!".
There's soooo many factors coming into this once you consider how hiring really works. The mantra "best artist gets the job" which is repeated very often, is true in general, but it does over-simplify how hiring really works.
p.s. I think the sensible thing is just to remove your online folio if you don't have time to keep it updated. It does more harm than good if you don't care for it.
(*) related to this, I prefer hiring mediocre artists with potential over divas. Since I know about art, I can more easily help someone with talent to make use of it, rather than changing their personality (I ain't no psycho doc). And having a well oiled team of regular and motivated artists beats a disorganized bunch of super-stars any day.
Basically if somebody does what Hazardous said and puts up some pro art and tries to become as good, how long does that take? Clearly it needs to be done, so will the amateur become a pro in half, or quarter the time the pro did, or take just as long, perpetually leaving themselves only as qualified as the pro 'used to be?'
Heh, I suppose it's an allegory for the fact this industry hardly has any form of "trainees."
Also there's many levels of pros. Usually new artists get the smaller jobs - i.e. building props, touching up completed characters, doing support characters, moving on to bodies but not doing the faces of characters, and so on. Ideally when you hire someone you want to think "yeah, the guy could do that and re-inforce the team with that so we can have the better people on the team work on something else".
If you art is, for comparison, better than the main character of the studio's flagship game, then you'll be hired for sure, and not just as junior, but as regular artist. But you can aim lower at that (and most people end up lower than that, if they want to or not). If there's a round to ramp up, your art will be compared to the juniors (or regular artists) already on the team, not the lead artist with 5 AAA titles under his belt and 10 years of experience. (if you're that good, you'll probably apply somewhere else anyway and ask for more money than they're willing to pay for the job you're applying).
Also when hiring you want to hire people who "fit the job". Overqualified people tend to leave as soon as they find something better if you don't have a job waiting for them. HR doesn't like fluctuation.
For juniors you look for potential, attention to detail, possible roles he could fill once he shows up at the studio's door. You want to put the guy on a task that you have, you don't want to have to invent tasks for the new guy. And once it's the first day in the studio, the learning really begins. Most people would agree they learned more on their first job than in college, or by themselves or anywhere else.
After the first job, there's the 2nd knockout round: continuing employment. For most people the first job is a real eye opener (just ask around how many people think their first folio really sucked badly
A good place to look is at apps. Go to Apple's and Android's stores and look for cool 3D games. Next to the game it displays who the developers are. Use Google, find out about the studio and contact them looking for a 3D position and mention how much you love their game(s).
Sure some of them will be tiny indies, but a lot aren't.
Also there are now a lot of browser based games out there.
A lot of them are using Unity and for a beginner I would consider learning that and creating assets for it for the lower spec mobile/browser market. It's a good way to get a foot into the games industry.
Those markets and the whole free to play thing means that there are a lot of new small studios appearing. But best to find out about them by doing your research. Don't expect to stumble across an advert they might have posted.
There's a lot of these developing countries that give a good living for a pay cut - Middle East, India, Malaysia, Philippines, South America. Do your research and it might be worth it. The world is developing fast.
But yeah, don't treat this as a first choice unless you're adventurous / know what you're doing. Home is always easiest.
Even in SGP the local wage niveau is lower than in western EU standards. Which is okay while you're there, but may bite you if you come back when you realize all the money you made there is worth squat at home. Which sucks when you have to get yourself established in the UK/US/EU at a new job (not good if you have to borrow your rental deposit from your new employer right away
If your family is in Malaysia, I guess it's good. Otherwise you may just have troubles spending EUR 1000,- just to visit your home in Europe/US once every year. At least it might rip enough of a hole in your pocket to make the whole endeavor not worthwhile. Well I guess you're the first person from a western country (who's not an amateur English teacher) who'd go for that. Actually I know Malaysians and SGP people who come to Shanghai or Beijing for better work prospects in the gaming industry.
Seriously, I'd recommend anyone else to rather consider jobs in eastern europe, if you're from the EU. Asia ain't that fun if you're low on cash. It's worthwhile though once you established yourself and have those AAA production skills that are needed here.
Good luck!
probably depends where they're from (locals/foreigner) and what their position is. I just have a hard time believing anyone would bring in western foreigners for junior positions. I mean what's the benefit of that? You can get kickass artists in all those countries without the visa / relocation / language hassle. The only thing all those countries lack are people with previous AAA experience who can share this with the local artists.
Unfortunately in my experience, the artistically unqualified people are usually completely unable to tell the difference between good work and their work...
odd, when it comes to my real job in audio, im the other way around the bar i set for my own work, is a lot higher, than the bar i set for others before i consider something good.
I suppose I couldn't have asked for a better answer. Thanks.
It could be the case that it's a junior artist that doesn't do well without direction - so once they got an art test they rocked it. I've seen plenty of people with great portfolios totally choke on art tests.
Codemasters KL were looking at us western graduates because we had good English and could transfer back to the headquarters in the UK if we were good, it was a kind of year's training camp.
Also I think they have trouble getting good blood in locally, Malaysia is not a populous country and the arts are pretty side lined - they've been hiring from the surrounding countries so they're already used to visa hassels, plus there's pretty strong brain drain so there's always new demand.
But yeah, this is all moot. It's something I know CM are looking at but it's not been tried as far as I know - it's too late for my group, most of us have already found jobs in the UK.
So yeah I agree Asia is not a good choice for everyone in the EU, but it is a possible choice, and depending on your roots and companies involved it may have other benefits.
I heard living in Malaysia is pretty ok (better Chinese food than in China lol), but that's mostly from expats with higher than average wage.
Otherwise, if Eastern Europe: Crytek is in Budapest (beautiful city!) and Epic is in Warshaw. I think there's also in-sourcers in Kiew (more hassle since not EU) and in other former states. I totally recommend doing some research if you're a graduate looking for a job. Also it's a great learning experience to move to another country. Plus, in some of those places, the hiring criteria are lower because they just need to get people on board to begin with.
Oh man yes.. THIS.
Malaysia and the UK have special agreements, being a former colony and all. I'm pretty sure there was more incentive in Codemasters setting up there than just cheap Malays and good English.
Also funny fact in Malaysia, the more you pay for food, the worse it is. Best meals are found at the £1 to £5 region. It's a common tourist mistake
I've never really looked at Eastern Europe - I always thought the competition there was more than I can handle. I'll definitely give that some research - thanks!
Haha, you'll pay up to £5 in the touristy food courts under the Petronas Towers for a meal, but yeah, go any higher than that and the quality just drops.
I'll stick to my mamak restaurants and street food thank-you
Its badly needed in UK universities when you consider that people who want to be artists have to spend so much time working on reports when they could be working on a portfolio. There are still so many academic rules that are given more importance over practical creative work. At the end of the day, no one employing artists is going to want to sit there reading your 80 page dissertation.
If the universities really knew what the industry wanted, it would put a big dent in those stubborn youth unemployment figures.
I don't think universities like to hear "oh, you're useless, just shut down"
Well that's a bit extreme lol, not everything they do is useless and that's pretty much a given. The point standing is if there were more universities that are in sync with industry, there would be more skilled graduates who are more employable.
Yeah that's pretty much a pattern with education in the UK. I remember in 2003 when I first went to college right after normal school it was impossible to find subjects that were related to game art. The closest thing was a BTEC in graphics which was basically art GCSE (paint this still life, make a clay bowl and then do some embroidery):thumbdown:
Its probably not the tutors, its the bureaucrats that design the curriculum, they don't believe young people know what they actually want to do even if they have been saying they want to be an environment artist since they were 15.
So they decide to go for this system where everyone is taught in these long and expensive broad subjects that don't prepare them for an industry that expects people to specialize.
That doesn't mean they don't need to hear it though. Terrible courses don't improve without sufficient motivation to.
I think it's a double edged sword, but being in the industry for a couple of years I agree. A highly specialized course is great for short term benefit: finding a job right away. A broader ranger of subject pays off in the long run. Given that many people in college still don't really know what they want and where their real strengths lie, it's a good idea to expose them to many different things. And during your life in the industry it will pay off that you heard about them already.
didn't know that. But brits do have some small advantages in commonwealth countries.
Well I'm just speaking from personal experience, I knew I wanted to do this from an early age and I never wavered on that through school, college or university. Before I got to uni I was too often forced to do subjects that won't impress my current employer but it was required to impress universities to give me a place. So its such a wide flank before you get to this point.
I believe that broad subjects are perfect at school level, beyond that is running the risk of distracting some people from their goals and also forcing education to be longer and more expensive than it needs to be.
I can't help but think how much of a benefit to the economy it would be if youth unemployment was tackled by making sure what people learn in education is more impressive and relevant to industry, so they don't graduate only to be on welfare a few months later.
Of course you're indeed right that there are pro's and con's though, maybe it just needs to be more balanced with an even share of broad subjects and focused ones.
Well that's the thing, if they taught what was relevant they would not have to shut down, because then what is taught would be of value to the industry.
Very true. But I think focusing is something that is better for the student to do, rather than teachers forcing it on them (although there are countries where there are focused Universities and un-focused ones - Germany and Austria have a system like this).
It's easier for the student to say "yeah I like modeling/animation/whatever" than the uni pushing it on them. It's also easier if someone with a wide overview of subjects, such as an university, exposes a student to as many different things possible, because the student himself may not be able to do this, because of lack of knowlege of the width and depth of the industry.
What's the problem here? The student has to pick something early. The student has to specialize on his own as much as possible before graduation and the uni has to help once the student know what he likes best. And this is where many colleges fall short, from what I hear from people who have or are studying. My college certainly fell short of this, even though I feel they did a great job showing me as much of the industry as possible ...and yes, it took me quite some time to find the subject I liked best
I think colleges should continue exposing the students to as much different areas as possible, but at one point they have to say "now focus, we want you to get a job after you graduate!"
I agree with what you are saying but i think what Vio is trying to say (or at least what i would say after attending the same Uni) is that the specialisation doesn't really happen early enough. For example in third year i've still had to do skinning, animation, offline lighting + rendering and a ton of report writing rather than being able to focus on purely environment art which is what i decided i wanted to focus on during 2nd year.
Obviously to give people a taste of everything it does take a lot of time that's fair enough, and spreading it out over 2 years seems to be about as fast as it can be done without skipping parts. But then it should be possible to purely focus on the chosen area during final year if the student has picked a speciality.
True, it is the students' responsibility to an extent, but not completely. I went in thinking I wanted to do animation and the first 3D class the school taught was a general class covering everything. By my second year, I knew I preferred modeling, but jokes on me, they offer 1 modeling class and it focuses on NURBS modeling in Maya, so it's impossible to specialize. They have no one who has even used Zbrush and they just hand you Mudbox and tell you to figure it out. The closest I got to a course that taught environment art was a grad school class on "level design" (they don't know what a level designer does) where I had to teach the instructor what a light map was and he failed me on a project for using static meshes rather than all BSP.
I went to grad school knowing I would have to teach myself a lot, except between being forced to take useless research, business, and engineering classes, I didn't have time to work on my portfolio. The work I was able to do in school was so rushed that it was poor quality. So, a year later, I'm still trying to get my work to a level where I can get a job.
I don't think that students need to be spoon fed everything and it should be their responsibility to push themselves. However, If they are going to charge such insane tuition fees then schools should make effort to hire competent staff, keep them up to date on current techniques and technologies, and put some real effort into helping the students get a job after graduation. Many of them start game programs because they will bring in students, but they have no idea what they're doing and they can only hire from a pool of local candidates who have never had an industry job.
As I said, only about 5 students from the last 3 graduating classes have gotten jobs in their field and only 2 of those are in the game industry. I would like to think that my experience was an exception, but at the East Coast Game Conference, my school had a far better showing of work than any other school there and most of the people I talked to thought we were actually doing well above the norm.
I know I'm a little bitter from having to live on my family's charity for so long, but there really is no excuse for what some of these schools do. With the amount of money I had to put into student loans I shouldn't still be teaching myself the basic things need to get a job after 2 degrees. Yeah, my portfolio needs work and that's something only I can do, but it's their job to provide a foundation and they basically took my money for nothing.
Sorry for the rant, but this seriously pisses me off.
While I do agree with this, it must be said that this isn't easy. When we've often talked about the kind of staff we think should work at these schools we have images in our heads of the very people who work in the industry. Probably some guy we get along with and has years of experience to turn into valuable wisdom for young students. That can sometimes be pretty unrealistic methinks: sometimes the old saying of "Those who can - do, while those who can't - teach." actually applies. Those kind of artists may very well want to stay in the industry, and have no interest in teaching. Even when they do, just because they are great artists doesn't mean they make great teachers, it's hard to make the stars align. Of course that's no reason to stop trying to get relevant up-to-date teachers and curriculum.
On another note, a lot of people are rubbishing university for not providing specialisation. But specialisation is not the be all and end all. Also people here are not making a distinction between Technical Education and Theoretical Education, two fields I believe should be separated and contained within a students overall education. As artists it is understandable to prefer technical, which many universities do not focus on. With technical, students learn 'how' to be good artists, but not 'why.' I'll leave it up to you guys to decide what matters to you, as I'm sure some would retort with "the job is why."
Technical education is where we should get to specialise: it's all about the ins and outs and actual skills. Theoretical should teach us how to better think, approach problems and situations, question standards etc etc. Here broard knowledge should be enriching. To me, a focus on technical over theoretical is part of the reason so many of young amateurs folios being filled with space marines and orcs.
Universities are trying to train people worth hiring, but the industry wants tools worth hiring. Since the universities are failing to deliver what the industry wants, those of us who don't get a job are left with the impression that everything we learned is valueless, and I mean c'mon! So many really looks at it that way, admittedly the learning does not scale with what we pay, but I don't get to be as empathic about that in my situation, I apologise in advance. But to throw away any part of past experience as valueless? Even I learned valuable things from dead-end jobs that made me who I am today.
The thing is, a lot of people are finding ways to get into this industry without going to uni, you could quite easily do that if you were a regular on polycount from age 16 for example. There is so much to learn here and its totally free. In other industries there are also shifts to vocational training, apprenticeships and so on where they get total focused education and they often have a lot of success when they finish but they already know people in the industry and know how to do the job to industry standards.
I have such major californian envy at the moment, seeing all you surfing snowboarding bros high fiving each other all the way to the AAA.....
And we have Leamington Spa