posted 08-25-2004 11:31 PM               

Im all for art direction. I don't mind having to redo something based on my leads directions, or concept artists feedback, I have no problems changing things away from the way I would do them, based on someone higher ups personal preference/direction. Mainly because im paid to do it, and my ownership of said assets only extends but so far.

But I was thinking, how many more assets would you get done over the course of the game, without art direction? What would happen if the Art lead hired a team of competent artists, who he could trust to do the quality and technical level needed for the game, and just let them at the assets. no revisions. how much more work would get done? I personally think it would be alot.

I have found that from my art direction, not changing things that are wrong, but changing them to fit the style or personal preference of the leads, can add several hours, if not more, to each asset.

Do you think the end game would benefit more from the art direction bringing everything into almost perfect cohesion? or by having 20-30% more assets. The man hours add up, and could equal another whole level in a game, 2 more enemy character models for variation, 10 more animations, 45 seconds more cutscenes, etc etc etc. I believe that most players are so artistically challenged, that they cant tell the difference between decent game art and the more highly polished game art. (as a generality)

Now i personally havent made up my mind, and I think this will be a good discussion. I can definately see the pro's of having art direction and revision (closer style adherence, possible quality increase) and i can also see the pros of having no art revision (more fun for the individual artist not having his creative decisions poo-poo'ed, more asset creation over course of the project) but im sure there are things i havent thought of or considered.

posted 08-25-2004 11:40 PM               

so yes in summary i say that revision-type stuff does take extra time that can be cut down on by good communication and better coordination in pre-production art. as in concept art. as in hire me now i will make your game fabulous, everyone.

in this thread i would also like to hear back from different artists who have worked under different approaches to production art--like say for instance, bobo and darx with ritual's tiered system of production, wherein successive 'passes' are made on characters depending on how much time/what is needed.

posted 08-26-2004 12:37 AM               

Frankly, I think the character now looks less like who its meant to be than my earlier version.

Does that answer your question about how I feel about it?

Seriously though, it all boils down to the Art director and the Artist. It boils down to wether or not the project has an Art director in the true sense of the word, a visionary. It boils down to the competence of the individual Artist and how much babysitting is needed.
Games like MGS2, PoP clearly have a visionary behind them since all the Artwork has a cohesive gelling style.

The problem with my company ( possibly not fair. My studio I should say ) is that they use Art directors incorrectly in my opinion. I dont think that it is the Art directors role to sit over my shoulder and tell me which points to move or which edges to flip. Thats MY role. Its HIS role to tell me what style the character is depicted in. Are the textures photosourced? Handpainted? Stylized in some way? Its his job to take a step back and look at the overall look of the game, NOT to nitpick individual assets.

In a nutshell, I work at a studio that hires Art directors from a lack of faith in its Artists, as opposed to Art directors that are visionaries for overall look and feel. Thats two VERY different things, and the studios that hire AD's for their correct purpose make much better looking games ( provided they have competent artists. Another failing of the studio Im at ).

So yeah, its a bit fubar'd and sad. But thats how I feel about it.

I'll be honest here: I recently reached a turning point in my career, where I had an oppurtunity to make AD. After much deliberation, Im gonna not go for it. Because at the co. I currently work for at least, as many folks helped me realised, the only thing I'll really gain from it is to end up being the 'guy that everybody hates'

posted 08-26-2004 01:23 AM               

It’s easy to see what’s wrong with this system. There is art direction coming from two sources and a lead that can’t make up his mind.

I'm pretty sure that with out one person directing the flow and style of the art that the project would end up with all its art looking like it belonged to different games.

posted 08-26-2004 02:01 AM               

A few games with excellent art direction have already been mentioned, like MGS2 and Prince of Persia. I think one of the most interesting games from an artistic standpoint I've played recently is Painkiller. While the gameplay didn't deviate too much from the "shoot anything that moves" formula, the art for the game was extremely varied in both look, and arguably, quality. It felt to me like the art for the game was made by a bunch of different mod teams (no offense to modders out there), but it went well with the goofy nature of the game. I enjoyed getting to the next level in Painkiller just to see what kind of new exotic locale they'd throw you in. Painkiller was also a pretty long game, and I have a feeling that there wasn't too much reworking going on with those assets.

posted 08-26-2004 04:27 AM               

Definitly for the art direction.
I guess I'm the art director for what I'm doing, so I know what everything should look like when it's finished, even thoough I don't know what the asset is going to look like... if that makes sense. :S

Let me try it this way... yeah. I'm not making a lot of the concept art, but I know what is going to make it fit together and look cohesive. It's a bit hard though if you have separate people making the weapons... you can end up with a pair of guns that are supposed to be from the same 'setting' and yet look totally different.

I agree that some of this can cut down on productivity, but at least you will have a game that looks cohesive, instead of something that looks like a quake 3 frag fest. I'd be fine with letting that artists do their stuff with little hassling if I knew they knew what I was looking for.

I know sometimes the concept art will be perfect for the model, but will be worth nothing when it comes time for the texture.

posted 08-26-2004 05:47 AM               

Daz, I had a feeling that was what you were talking about back then, Also I knew you would have a strong opinion on this.

Not to be rude, but really this would be a discussion mainly for people who have worked in a paid studio environment, and even more selectively, multiple paid studio environments. Alot of people have this fairy-tale notion of how an AD works and what he does, and the difference between what really happens and this notion are drastic. I am mainly asking the contract artists, and studio veterans out there what they think of this conundrum.

Im sure Daz that there are visionary art directors like that out there. I personally have yet to work in a situation like that, but it would be nice to some day, at least for the experience.

to those bringing up cohesion and specific game examples. Im not saying let every artist go willy nilly with whatever style they want. Im sure mature professional artists could make the effort personally to guide their styles to a similar result in the right environment, im not proposing making a game out of turbosquid assets.

Lets take the extreme examples out of the picture, (ico, FF series, pop) and go back to the games that have realistic budgets, team sizes, and arent setting out to be the next artistic circle jerk of beauty. Do you really think that the average player, would be able to spot the difference in, lets say a Rainbow six game, or any of the traditional fantasy games, sci fi, even so far as GTA games (which really arent all that stylized other than the concept art) if it had an art director or just a lead artist vetoing anything too off the wall.

Ive found in the 2 companies ive worked at full time (havent been at mythic long enough to come to an opinion) and the 4 or 5 companies ive worked contract for, the "art direction" that ive recieved, im about 98% positive the end player would never ever have noticed the difference in the changes I made. but i personally believe both games would have felt more fully fleshed out with the extra assets I could have created with all that revision time, and I do think the player would have noticed that.

In an age where we are having trouble finishing assets in the alloted time (normal maps anyone) Why is it that anal revisions by Art Directors get even lengthier? You would think if anything, they would be forced to drop, only used when the asset is way out of line with the current style. Yet we find examples like daz says all the time, Move these 4 verts out 8 inches, more specular right here, make this look less painted, etc etc etc.

posted 08-26-2004 06:29 AM               

I have much less of a problem with ADs having me do revisions, although doing too many pointless revisions can be demoralizing and cause the overall productivity of the art department to suffer. I agree that having better pre-production in terms of fulling utilizing the concept art stage to revise art is a good thing.

Each studio is going to be different. If a studio hires lots of entry level people, you can bet that there will be plenty of revisions, and eventually a fair number of folks will get fired or laid off (or quality will end up mixed). If a studio hires a bunch of experienced artists, most of whom have already worked together and/or worked with the AD, there is likely to be VERY little revision once the project is in full production. Both approaches (and other approaches) can work very well, if the studio has a good AD and carefully hires/manages artists.

I'm in favor of better Art Direction over more content. I think that trend will win out, since quality tends to win out over quantity in the entertainment industries. However, some Art Directors suffer from the same problem as those Studio Heads I mentioned...Ego related problems. They LOVE being able to have people revise stuff. They love being in charge. The have the ability to micro-manage, and they like micro-managing. They should not be Art Directors, in my opinion. Those ADs waste studio's money to stroke their Egos. They should teach five year olds, and seek out therapy.

Good ADs have art revised when needed, and no more, because that is how to have an efficient art department. Good ADs, and good managers in general, know that their job is to help the people they manage get their jobs done. Their job is not to actually DO the work, or hover over all the work constantly, making people constantly adjust things.

Luckily, as the industry matures, things gradually are run in a more professional fashion at successfull studios. Famous producers can't get away with having huge amounts of work redone endlessly, unless they quckly move from studio to studio before their publishers realize how incompetant they are. The same will happen with Art Directors. Over time there will be more and more competant ADs who are simply better managers.

posted 08-26-2004 06:32 AM               

Tell me about your mother.

posted 08-26-2004 06:40 AM               

I've been talking to employees that work at EA at my Gnomon class and they basically say that the Human Resource Department and People who make decisions about content are generally not artists or technical people.

That would probably explain all those revisions and wasted money......they don't know what they want or what style to achieve.

So to limit this to professionals.....well you gotta be professional 1st.

'Big' 3D Game studios have only been around for what 5 to 8 years?.....how professional can it be?

posted 08-26-2004 07:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FunkaDelicDass:
I personally feel that cohesive art direction is much more important than more content. I think most people's opinions on this topic would differ depending on what kind of art director he/she works for. I'm currently working under an AD who I believe is very good at what he does. He gives the art team a lot of creative freedom, but at the same time, he has to draw the line when the art doesn't feel like it belongs in the game anymore. Also, on the game I'm currently working on, our story was re-written half way through the project, which naturally had a huge impact on art production. Tons of stuff needed to be tweaked and rewworked, but it's all part of the process. And in the end, our game looks much better with extra passes we gave to existing art.

A few games with excellent art direction have already been mentioned, like MGS2 and Prince of Persia. I think one of the most interesting games from an artistic standpoint I've played recently is Painkiller. While the gameplay didn't deviate too much from the "shoot anything that moves" formula, the art for the game was extremely varied in both look, and arguably, quality. It felt to me like the art for the game was made by a bunch of different mod teams (no offense to modders out there), but it went well with the goofy nature of the game. I enjoyed getting to the next level in Painkiller just to see what kind of new exotic locale they'd throw you in. Painkiller was also a pretty long game, and I have a feeling that there wasn't too much reworking going on with those assets.

If we want to compete with the production quality of film, I think art direction will have to take a precedence over content. Games that excel in story and cimatic moments (Prince of Persia, Ico, Metriod Prime) are typically made believable by their unified art direction. Games that are less dependant on story (Painkiller, UT2004) can afford to have more assets at the cost of varied art direction.

---

Get outa my brain FunkaDelicDass I was going to post that.

PaninKiller and UT2004 as FDD said seem to have little dirction but the difference with the two is that PK worked and UT2k4 is just a mess.

posted 08-26-2004 07:58 AM               

kalbers, im so glad you responded, your opinions and views are always tempered by your experience, and I like hearing what you have to say. Im glad the trend is headed in the right direction, and your quote about the art directors eventually becoming tried and true is a good one. thanks mate

posted 08-26-2004 08:05 AM               

I'm the same as any other artist in that when I finish something and I take to my AD to sign off on, I consider it of a high enough quality to be finished. I am anal retentive in self scheduling ( I'm the only one here that makes his own excell sheets listed estimate times, actual time and the reasons for backsliding if ever there is any) and I pay a lot of attention to the other artists around me and try to fit in.

Now and then my AD will want me to work on something for up to a couple of extra days ( especially in the case of human faces because noone can avoid pushing toward a characterization that they PERSONALLY feel is approachably) to 'get it right'.

While this can often be frustrating, it is necessary because that same AD is ensuring the same standards and styles are being enforced on the LD's as well as the Artists and that creates a cohesive and beleivable world that blends well together.

I think sooner or later we all have to admit that we have and Ego. Ego will always tell us we are right when we are happy and that others are wrong when we unhappy with a creative decision that is not self generated because we do not always understand the reasons for it.

I think this is more a western problem than an eastern problem and it shows in the seamless continuity that is apparent in more eastern games than western games.

Capitalism is all about the individual. We all want 1st place, we are raised in a soceity that pretends we should be team players but beleives in truth that each of us is better than the other.

Another good thing about having and AD is that then you only have one person to prove. Once they sign off on it, THATS IT MAN! You're done. Likewise I think we need to realise that once it leaves our copy of photoshop/max, we no longer have any personal ownership.

Committe suck ass, its a timewaster, and having a bunch of artists, regardless of how talented and self motivated and teamplay orientated they are, thinking they can just work shit out between themselves ALWAYS leads to chaos rather than the ideal of anarchy.

I beleive in the rule of a benevelont dictatorship in the workplace. It gets shit done a lot more quickly.
I've seen both sides of the arguement in action and some shades of grey inbetween and stand firmly in favour of AD.

Of course, like most artists I will periodically sulk about 'their lack of vision' or 'inability to take the risks I want to take' but thats just my ego talking and I know that

Whether or not they are a good AD is another matter totally.

posted 08-26-2004 08:07 AM               

In the first company, I worked with or for many outside teams, so I've worked with/over/under quite a few other Leads/ADs. Only a couple of those have been really good at that role, most have not. It is a difficult job, I think especially since most ADs were (rightly so) artists first.

ADs should be able to constantly step back to see the big picture, not bog down in the minute details. I think it is all too easy for any artist to get into the nitty-gritty, it's the perfectionist hands-on mindset that an artist typically gets used to.

But I think this mindset is really at odds with an ADs responsibilities... keep the project on-budget, on-time, within the target tech specs. The last responsibility, really, should be to keep things stylistically on-target.

But in my experience it's very difficult for an artist to divorce him/herself from that last one. Project management is usually not an intuitive task for many of us, it takes experience and it takes time spent studying others who have done it well. And it takes dedication. And it takes the ability to set one's ego aside, as kalbers pointed out.

IMO, many ADs do not have the discipline (or inclination) to put their head in the space it needs to be in, and keep it there. In my first experiences as an AD, I found myself slipping constantly into micro-management mode, and had to pull back again, gain perspective. It is too easy to fall into the mindset I'm in with my own personal art, and inappropriately projecting that onto the artists' work I'm directing. It's a bad disconnect to make.

The trick I've found with an AD position is to constantly jerk myself back to the big picture. I need to compare this particular art asset with the others already created, and those yet to be created. I need to consider how this artist is doing time-wise.

I also need to consider how this artist feels about their work. If he/she is not enjoying it, in some capacity, then we probably won't get a good result out of their work, and sooner or later the artist will leave for greener pastures. All the time and money spent on training/guiding/growing this artist may not be recouped, since the costs involved with each hire are typically made back over the long run, over a couple projects.

Personally I try to treat each artist I direct as a precious asset. Try to get their input into the project as much as possible, the art will generally improve, and the artists will invest themselves into it, rinse and repeat.

I don't have the time to go into all the things I as an AD have to think about, but the art style is really only a fraction of it, in my experience. Of course a good AD needs artistic flair, and needs a wide-ranging artistic intellect, capable of producing whatever style is needed for the job at hand. But too often the management aspects are neglected, to the team's detriment.

One more point. I think ADs should to have personal experience in the disciplines they are directing, otherwise it can be very difficult to make informed decisions in guiding the various artists/TDs in their tasks. You need to be able to understand the limits/possibilties of that particular technology/skill. And you need to be able to see from the artist's POV, be diplomatic and smart about the decisions you convey.

It can be very difficult finding an AD candidate who has all these skills, thus the good ones are rare. Not saying I'm a good one, that's up to the artists I work with. I made it a point to get the artists to review me, anonymously, at the end of each project. Their written reviews were handed to the person above me, who then used them in my yearly review. Sometimes I could tell who said what, even though it was third-hand, but the information was invaluable in improving my workflow. This kind of review method can have real payoffs, in that it helps me be constantly aware of my performance on the job, helps me improve, and gives the artists a chance to discuss their management. But many companies might balk at this approach, the artists typically aren't aware of the bigger picture and how it informs an AD's daily decisions, thus their gripes may lack perspecitve. Nonetheless, if they are true issues they should be addressed, on way or another. The AD's superior also needs to be able to weed out the relevant issues, not knocking the AD with issues that don't pertain to their actual performance.

posted 08-26-2004 10:03 AM               

Im a character Artist on pop2, and uh.

I'd say, The Art director is a Visionnary yeah, He as a good eye, but, like u said, Sitting over my shoulder, is just not is good point.

My Ad, as No character Modeling/texturing background, AS far as I know, he was a level artist before, not that it matther much, cause he as a good eye, I respect him for that, but it stop there.

When he start telling me to change stuff, move that here and there, WTF.

I mean realy, He clearly as no idea.

I didnt have a good time working on pop2.

All of that time I had this feeling that we character artist, were useless, and not that important.

so yeah. Much hate
Im clearly thinking about upgrading position, to Toilet cleaner. .

posted 08-26-2004 11:08 AM               

A GOOD AD can keep his objectivity, something we grunts naturally lose when our nose is to the grindstone. Someone has to be there to watch the big picture. This has to be ONE person; too many cooks in the kitchen dilute the soup with conflicting ingredients. I've yet to meet an AD with that degree of trust bestowed upon him, but I'm convinced there's one behind every great game.

My recent experiences have me thinking more and more about being an AD or concept artist. Maybe in a few years.

posted 08-26-2004 12:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorshach:
Another good thing about having and AD is that then you only have one person to prove. Once they sign off on it, THATS IT MAN! You're done.

---

Oh If only. I only dream of that being the case Ror Try working with the added 'sign off' of an exec producer, a producer, a lead designer, a franchise representitive, perhaps even a celebrity and or their agent. Its no picnic.

posted 08-26-2004 12:27 PM               

Then the AD needs to distill that down into their discussions with the artist who actually makes the changes.

Having said that, sometimes even your best work as an AD will only get you so far with a problem client, and you may ultimately have to just suck it in, tell the artist to make the requested changes. A high-profile client, or one with connections you need, sometimes means you'll need to bend over backwards, not just to keep the current job, but to land the next one. Or to keep word-of-mouth positive. Or because the studio head owes them.

posted 08-26-2004 12:30 PM               

If our AD likes it, thats the last i hear of it. If anyone else walks by my desk and suggests something or tries to get me to change something I just say ' Have you spoken to AD about this?' and they either shut up and disappear, or they talk to AD and then if they can win him over ( which is rare) then AD comes to me and in this fashion, I need only please my AD.

A lot of places seem very confused on what job titles actually mean imo. I expect im preaching to the converted by telling you this though

posted 08-26-2004 12:59 PM               

Posm, I know what he *needs* to do and what he *should* do and how the whole process *should* work. It simply aint how it is where I work. Which is definitely an added stress.

posted 08-26-2004 01:26 PM               

We had this one guy that everybody hated but was 'best friends' with top management. The guy couldn't direct his way out of a wet paper bag. His direction consisted of Spinal Tap quotes such as "I need you to bring that up to an 11" or the flat out "this work is unprofessional" when I never saw the guy do anything worth a damn.

Oh and there is nothing I hate more that crits based on pc monitor at high resolusion when developing a console game. Massive waste of time. For those who have developed for the console you know what I'm talking about.

Here is my fav: artist interprets game art based on concept, gets the thumbs up or a list of crits, those are handled and the art is done. Any minor touch-ups are done by the director themselves based on the final in game look. I'm not talking major changes. If the director wants to see that armor a little more blue, they should test do it themselves, get invovled. Of course sharing the final look with he artist to better the direction of future pieces.

posted 08-26-2004 01:36 PM               

Rorshach, well put, about how your AD enforces the chain of command. Sounds to me like a smart AD.

If you're an artist stuck with bad management, you should decide if the BS/politics is worth it. If not, move on. DaZ you certainly seem like you have enough talent. Probably none of my business but I'd guess there might be other reasons to stay, like the project or location or pay or whatever.

When work sucks, but I can't leave, I stay sane by finding another artistic outlet, where I have all the control and none of the BS.

posted 08-26-2004 01:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by posm:
[B]DaZ, didn't mean to insinuate that you didn't.
If you're an artist stuck with bad management, you should decide if the BS/politics is worth it. If not, move on. DaZ you certainly seem like you have enough talent. Probably none of my business but I'd guess there might be other reasons to stay, like the project or location or pay or whatever.
B]

---

Oh no thats fine. I didnt mean my response to come across as abrupt. Yeah, its a little thing called a work visa In progress now. Could take 6 mnths to come through.

Lets put it this way: I have no qualms at all working with a talented AD who has vision. Plus a second pair of eyes is always useful. But its a fine line between being useful and being a royal pain in a non productive diminishing returns ass. That said, Im now curious to know how people view me as a lead and wether or not my contribution is as annoying as I see my ADs SouL?

Im big enough and ugly enough to not actually need an AD at all on a grass roots 'move that vertex' level or even a slightly higher level of how to capture a likeness ( alot of what I do ). Quite frankly, my work is always better If Im left alone ( but I also value the opinion of some of my peers ) so in a nutshell it really depends on the AD and wether or not I value and respect their opinion. Ive never worked with an AD that I hold in very high regard. I dont think I particularly hide the fact that Im creatively at a place right now that Im not ecstatic about. Hence I try where possible to keep my hand in with work at home.

posted 08-26-2004 03:34 PM               

Of course a promotion really should only remain if you're good at the new role, but sometimes management needs the role to be filled, no matter what the consequences might be to you.

I've gone back and forth between AD and artist, that's worked well for me. Keeps me hands-on, while helping to keep my pay scale in the higher bracket. I like being able to switch, as the project requires, between management challenges and hands-on art creation. Too much management is too much stress for me, but I do like the challenge of it now and then.

Figuring out how to get the most bang for the buck, figuring out how to deal with all the personal issues that come up with each artist, finding out how each artist works, seeing how the studio structure works first-hand, hiring & training new people. Firing is the worst part, especially when it's someone with mixed reviews among the team, but sometimes you have to when schedules are tight and the artist refuses to pull their weight.

posted 08-26-2004 04:48 PM               

That being said, I think having strong art direction is a good thing, because it gfets everyone visually on the same page. But the quuality of that vision is enhanced or degraded by how well the direction is comminicated, and how the tasks are handed out to play to the artist's best abilities to match that artistic vision. A lot of people have very unique and idiosyncratic styles of their art, and that is generally a good thing, but not if you want all the assetts and chaacters to look like they are in the same "universe". It also reduces the amount of time, and revisions.

Finally, I sympathize with Daz, because he is working in the worst of all possible worlds, the "Licensed Product". There is no greater creative hell than that, except perhaps a sports title. The amount of approvals, and lack of control, and endless revisions by executives outside of the company, that must piss onthe project to make it their own, is a special kind of misery. One might as well be working in hollywood, where the boss of the effects house underbid like a mofo, to get the contract to do the special effects, and now the producer, and the cinematographer get into a bitchfight over the color correction of a scene, that the director and Executive producer wanted yesterday, and the Producer may be winning, even though he's a no talent, because he's the one with the money... My condolences.

posted 08-26-2004 05:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Ruggels:
Finally, I sympathize with Daz, because he is working in the worst of all possible worlds, the "Licensed Product". There is no greater creative hell than that, except perhaps a sports title. The amount of approvals, and lack of control, and endless revisions by executives outside of the company, that must piss on the project to make it their own, is a special kind of misery.... My condolences.

Scott

---

Well erm, wow. Never before have I seen a paragraph that so accurately portrays my working life. Add to that Art managers who have absolutely no clue what it is that you do or how, Art directors from film who've no idea what constraints you have to work under or how you make game Art, exec producers that think you can use 3D app hair renderers in the game in realtime, and you begin to get the full picture. Thankyou.

posted 08-26-2004 05:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorshach:
Whether or not they are a good AD is another matter totally.

---

Is Shane Caudle the AD there? Or am I confusing another dev...?

I've complained a few times this week about art direction at my job, or the lack of it to a few fellow polycounters.

I work as a graphic artist, but not in the game industry currently. I don't have an Art Director, just a biz boss who micro-manages me.

Last week I worked over 65 hours, and have already hit 50+ this week, doing revisions on a brochure & some other printed collateral. Now...these revisions aren't because I didn't capture what he was looking for or made some mistake. I followed his instructions to the LETTER, and then went above & beyond aesthetically to make the pieces visually pleasing. However, during the course of the last 2 weeks, he changes his mind 4 times, neccesitating a complete restart all 4 times. Meanwhile, all my other work has fallen behind, and he brow beats me for not being fast enough.

This to me seems a perfect example of poor managment.
paraphrased quote:

He says:"I really need this Ryan, your really falling behind, letting me down. We've gotta get this project done, I can't wait!"

I say:"Yeah, but I have finished the project 4 times already, and every time I do it, exactly as you asked, you change your mind, or have a new idea and need it completely re-done! Of course its taking longer! I worked 17 hours yesterday on my day off!"

He says:"I don't care. Thats your problem. Get it done. You need to work more. Its not like your going to do anything important with your spare time anyway. What do you do? Maybe play video games or sit around at home."

posted 08-26-2004 06:31 PM               

As far as management treat you like dirt goes , I sympathize. Our Manageress at Reflections had Hitler ambitions, she used come by the artists corner while we worked on through a 9month 6-7day week of 12-18 hour days on Driver crunchtime and pass comments like 'how are my little monkey's doing today' or directly to me ' If I were from a little place like Stranraer I'd just shut my mouth and be thankful for whatever I got' or explain that the meal I ordered for crunch was 1 pound too expensive.

On one occasion she did the same to one of the senior coders, he ordered the more expensive sized pizza anyway and when it arrived he handed her the money and went home at 7pm instead of his usual am. That was an incredible moment to me , I was still newb and I thought 'thats the way to be'

8 years on, and I can still feel the anger like a animal on my back. But hey, it builds character right?

'Paying your dues' in this industry can mean a wide variety of things I guess.

I hope the more regular occurance of these threads does not dissuade too many 'young hopefuls' from entering into the games industry. There are many incredible and euphoric moments of joy and cathartic experiences of biblical revelation to be had also.

I still prefer lifes rollercoaster to its roundabout.

Anyone else want to raise a glass to that?

posted 08-26-2004 06:46 PM               

cheers!

posted 08-26-2004 08:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rorshach:
I hope the more regular occurance of these threads does not dissuade too many 'young hopefuls' from entering into the games industry. There are many incredible and euphoric moments of joy and cathartic experiences of biblical revelation to be had also.

I still prefer lifes rollercoaster to its roundabout.

Anyone else want to raise a glass to that?

r.

---

Absolutely. Glass raised. I'll bitch and moan when I feel like it, but Im not some hate obsessed employee filled with loathing and disgruntlement secretly planning my postal day and how much ammunition I'll need and who to take out first.
Most days I still drive to work looking forward to it unlike many people in this world. Since through all the shiat, I still fundamentally really love what I do for a living. That's a somewhat rare thing in this world for which Im grateful.

Andrew: Im not saying the AD Im working with right now 'kills my creativity' so much as wastes my time from being indecisive, vague and contradictory. I think thats different. I really dont believe that any difference of opinion I have with my AD adversely affects the rest of the team. Im actually simply trying to make the game better and the content more interesting, and as lead character artist, the character guys are generally supporting me with that drive. Just wanted to clarify

Obviously the old addage about kitchens and heat comes into play here, but there are many funky little reasons why people stick out the same job, even If aspects of it are crap.

posted 08-30-2004 11:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by r13:
i wont go into the horrors of the art directon on planetside, but i will drink with your roar.

cheers!

---

posted 08-30-2004 12:05 PM               

A good art director has vision, good comunication skills, and a grasp of the limitations. They should guide the entire team into creating the overall vision. They've got to be able to convey this vision to the team and they've got to work with the team in terms of overcoming the shackles of the technology, often sacrificing what they want to see for what can actually be accomplished. They can rely on the artists to do the work, and only need to give them the feedback and direction they need to do that work on par and in line with the whole body of work.

Bad ADs are abundunt in this industry, mostly because it's a young industry and the roles are poorly defined (often not defined at all). A lot of artists are egotistical and don't have the maturity or experience to take critique. A lot of leads and ADs don't know how to give it. Almost no producer or higher ups do either, and they're very eager to throw their 2 cents in at the drop of a hat. Too many ADs focus on the details, muddling up the workflow, aggrivating the artists, and not doing their job of keeping the big picture clear.

Movie industry ADs don't work well in the game industry, they are used to serving a very particular role that's offset and supplemented by other roles that we don't currently have (directors, production designers, VFX designers, etc etc)...I've not heard of many ADs that made the transition well. Add to this the severe limitations of budget, team sizes, and working with finite resources and technology...and they're simply out of their element too much to be effective. They seem to be more ego-driven as well, dropping names, taking credit for other's work while dropping responsibility for failings onto the subordinates...the opposite of what a good AD should do.

I guess what it basically boils down to is our immaturity, both as an industry and as professionals in that industry. The technology is a beast, evolving at a rate that is impossible to keep up with, requiring HUGE shifts in paridigms every single generation. Until the tech reaches maturity, we can't begin to settle into optimal patterns of development, and we can't define the roles of team members we really need. Until that happens, we just have to do the best we can and take pride and joy in the getting to do the things we love to do.

posted 08-30-2004 01:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaZ:
"Its not like your going to do anything important with your spare time anyway."
You cannot possibly be serious Scooby that a manager said that to you in a workplace???!!! My God, Id have been hard pushed not to punch him square in the face. Not very adult, and absolutely not the right course of action but quite possibly immeasurably gratifying.

---

Yeah, no shit right? Thats not the worst of what he's said either. He used to constantly harrass me and call me "gay", though anybody who knows me knows I am very not. I had to write 2!!! letters asking him to quit it with the gay comments, as I found them offensive & inappropriate. Why 2 you ask? because after the first one, he stopped for maybe a month, and then started again, twice as bad as before.

Also assigned me to photograph the Chippendales show at the Rio Hotel...EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, 6 days a week for 3 months in ADDITION to my regular 40hrs/week workload...he thought it would be funny.

For example, this are DIRECT 100% Verbatim quotes.

He said this upon introducing me to a new SUBORDINATE employee of mine.

"Hey, Ryan, this is Adam, you'll like him, he's gay...just like you"

Or what he said to another manager when I asked to come in late the next day, to take my cats to the vet.

"Yeah, you'd better take care of them, thats the only pussy you get"

There are a couple people trying to convince me to file a lawsuit, but...I'm just not that kinda guy. I'd rather just get a better job, move on. Who needs legal hassle? I sure don't.

posted 08-30-2004 01:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ScoobyDoo:
Yeah, no shit right? Thats not the worst of what he's said either. He used to constantly harrass me and call me "gay", though anybody who knows me knows I am very not. I had to write 2!!! letters asking him to quit it with the gay comments, as I found them offensive & inappropriate. Why 2 you ask? because after the first one, he stopped for maybe a month, and then started again, twice as bad as before.

Also assigned me to photograph the Chippendales show at the Rio Hotel...EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, 6 days a week for 3 months in ADDITION to my regular 40hrs/week workload...he thought it would be funny.

For example, this are DIRECT 100% Verbatim quotes.

He said this upon introducing me to a new SUBORDINATE employee of mine.

"Hey, Ryan, this is Adam, you'll like him, he's gay...just like you"

Or what he said to another manager when I asked to come in late the next day, to take my cats to the vet.

"Yeah, you'd better take care of them, thats the only pussy you get"

There are a couple people trying to convince me to file a lawsuit, but...I'm just not that kinda guy. I'd rather just get a better job, move on. Who needs legal hassle? I sure don't.

[This message has been edited by ScoobyDoo (edited 08-30-2004).]

---

For God's sake...find another job and slap this guy with a lawsuit. People like this need to hit with legal hammers so they realize how innapropriate their behavior is.

See here everyone, you can complain because your AD makes you wiggle some verts around, but at least they're not doing this crap. It could ALWAYS be worse, and probably couldn't be much better than you THINK it could.

posted 08-30-2004 02:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by posm:
I've been an artist working under ADs, and I've been a Lead/AD working over other artists, in a professional game dev environment for about 11 years. Fortunately (or is it unfortunately?) I've only worked at two companies in that time. Selected work history here .

In the first company, I worked with or for many outside teams, so I've worked with/over/under quite a few other Leads/ADs. Only a couple of those have been really good at that role, most have not. It is a difficult job, I think especially since most ADs were (rightly so) artists first.

ADs should be able to constantly step back to see the big picture, not bog down in the minute details. I think it is all too easy for any artist to get into the nitty-gritty, it's the perfectionist hands-on mindset that an artist typically gets used to.

But I think this mindset is really at odds with an ADs responsibilities... keep the project on-budget, on-time, within the target tech specs. The last responsibility, really, should be to keep things stylistically on-target.

But in my experience it's very difficult for an artist to divorce him/herself from that last one. Project management is usually not an intuitive task for many of us, it takes experience and it takes time spent studying others who have done it well. And it takes dedication. And it takes the ability to set one's ego aside, as kalbers pointed out.

IMO, many ADs do not have the discipline (or inclination) to put their head in the space it needs to be in, and keep it there. In my first experiences as an AD, I found myself slipping constantly into micro-management mode, and had to pull back again, gain perspective. It is too easy to fall into the mindset I'm in with my own personal art, and inappropriately projecting that onto the artists' work I'm directing. It's a bad disconnect to make.

The trick I've found with an AD position is to constantly jerk myself back to the big picture. I need to compare this particular art asset with the others already created, and those yet to be created. I need to consider how this artist is doing time-wise.

I also need to consider how this artist feels about their work. If he/she is not enjoying it, in some capacity, then we probably won't get a good result out of their work, and sooner or later the artist will leave for greener pastures. All the time and money spent on training/guiding/growing this artist may not be recouped, since the costs involved with each hire are typically made back over the long run, over a couple projects.

Personally I try to treat each artist I direct as a precious asset. Try to get their input into the project as much as possible, the art will generally improve, and the artists will invest themselves into it, rinse and repeat.

I don't have the time to go into all the things I as an AD have to think about, but the art style is really only a fraction of it, in my experience. Of course a good AD needs artistic flair, and needs a wide-ranging artistic intellect, capable of producing whatever style is needed for the job at hand. But too often the management aspects are neglected, to the team's detriment.

One more point. I think ADs should to have personal experience in the disciplines they are directing, otherwise it can be very difficult to make informed decisions in guiding the various artists/TDs in their tasks. You need to be able to understand the limits/possibilties of that particular technology/skill. And you need to be able to see from the artist's POV, be diplomatic and smart about the decisions you convey.

It can be very difficult finding an AD candidate who has all these skills, thus the good ones are rare. Not saying I'm a good one, that's up to the artists I work with. I made it a point to get the artists to review me, anonymously, at the end of each project. Their written reviews were handed to the person above me, who then used them in my yearly review. Sometimes I could tell who said what, even though it was third-hand, but the information was invaluable in improving my workflow. This kind of review method can have real payoffs, in that it helps me be constantly aware of my performance on the job, helps me improve, and gives the artists a chance to discuss their management. But many companies might balk at this approach, the artists typically aren't aware of the bigger picture and how it informs an AD's daily decisions, thus their gripes may lack perspecitve. Nonetheless, if they are true issues they should be addressed, on way or another. The AD's superior also needs to be able to weed out the relevant issues, not knocking the AD with issues that don't pertain to their actual performance.

Good discussion, thanks for starting the thread. I'd like to hear what more ADs have to add, there are many more points that can be made about what it takes to be a successful one.

---

A lot of good points, but my main comment is this is generally why there is a need for an Art Director and a Lead Artist. The AD should be the visionary, direct the look of the game, have the skills to communicate that vision to the team (not just artists, but LDs/producers/management/etc), and provide the direction and support the art team needs to meet that vision. They shouldn't have to worry about getting bogged down in scheduling or the tecnical limitaions (outside of a basic understanding of the tech)...that's the role of the Lead Artist. The lead and the AD should be able to work together seamlessly, the AD provides the vision and the lead provides the how-to and implements that vision leading the team of artists. Conversely, the AD needs to take direction from the lead in terms of what can and can't be done on time, on budget, or at all. BOTH should be involved in production, very few artists can respect being directed by someone that doesn't produce. It's just so hard to find good people who are in charge because they have the skills and desire to make the project better and not simply so they can be the boss and force everyone to do what they want to be done.

Too many compaines try to lump the AD and lead into the same job, and I think it's too conflicting of a mindset to be truly effective. The AD is the dreamer and the lead is the engineer. It's very difficult to flip-flop back and forth between those two mindests during development.

posted 08-30-2004 02:19 PM               

Ror and scoobs... OMG... thats some really messed up shit... I'm not a huge fan of my job, but if I was being harassed like that in addition then i'd probably quit like my second day... or sue them... or both... man I wouldn't spend a day in that place...

posted 08-30-2004 03:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrath:
A lot of good points, but my main comment is this is generally why there is a need for an Art Director and a Lead Artist. The AD should be the visionary, direct the look of the game, have the skills to communicate that vision to the team (not just artists, but LDs/producers/management/etc), and provide the direction and support the art team needs to meet that vision. They shouldn't have to worry about getting bogged down in scheduling or the tecnical limitaions (outside of a basic understanding of the tech)...that's the role of the Lead Artist. The lead and the AD should be able to work together seamlessly, the AD provides the vision and the lead provides the how-to and implements that vision leading the team of artists. Conversely, the AD needs to take direction from the lead in terms of what can and can't be done on time, on budget, or at all. BOTH should be involved in production, very few artists can respect being directed by someone that doesn't produce. It's just so hard to find good people who are in charge because they have the skills and desire to make the project better and not simply so they can be the boss and force everyone to do what they want to be done.

Too many compaines try to lump the AD and lead into the same job, and I think it's too conflicting of a mindset to be truly effective. The AD is the dreamer and the lead is the engineer. It's very difficult to flip-flop back and forth between those two mindests during development.

[This message has been edited by Wrath (edited 08-30-2004).]

---

As someone said here, the Lead roles are not well defined in game dev yet. Or they may be clearly delineated within a particular company, but the roles are quite different at the next developer.

I'd like to hear more about how the roles are divided where you work. Sounds like you have a system that works for you.

posted 08-31-2004 03:32 PM               

I had a Sup who’d make Employee’s wife’s listen to one dirty joke before he’d hand over paychecks.

posted 08-31-2004 08:26 PM               

I have been a lead before (which was pretty much full reign and fault for the Art) and actually managed to still get the game out twice, but that was
It for me, I would now only be AD for my own company.
Other wise your never really get control of the Art.
Some fucker with more pull ALways wants something changed that you like,So you have to detach your self from the very vision your trying to create, the thing and AD should never do..IMO.

posted 09-01-2004 07:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrath:
...
The lead and the AD should be able to work together seamlessly, the AD provides the vision and the lead provides the how-to and implements that vision leading the team of artists.
...

---

I wonder how you are dividing up the two roles. I've seen first hand the problems with having two cooks in the kitchen. Communication between the two is key of course, but in your studio who communicates/directs the aesthetic decisions to the artists?

If I understand you correctly, your LA handles all the art-technical aspects. But stylistic decisions are never conveyed by the LA? Is it that your AD and LA are very much on a equal level and can easily divide up the same kinds of direction without causing artist confusion?

It sounds like your AD just creates the initial art bible/style, then the LA picks that up and actually directs the team. So the AD is overseeing the styles of several projects, communicating essentially only with the LA? And the LA only works on one project at a time?

One way that worked well for me in the past was to have a Producer and an AD. The P handled all time-tracking, budget, schedule, paperwork, team reviews, the bulk of hiring/firing, and much of the communication with the Publisher/rights holders. The AD directed all art issues, aesthetic and technical, communicated with the programming lead, communicated on aesthetic issues with the Publisher, had a say in artist hiring/firing but was saved from the runaround part of it, helped create the art bible (along with LDs and concept artists), and did some hands-on art production as time allowed... concepts, initial set-the-tone assets, fx, picking up slack, etc.

The AD worked on one project at a time (ideally, although a small internal project like R&D could also be tacked on), while the Producer oversaw multiple projects.

I was fortunate at times to have a capable senior artists on the job that could take on some of the responsibilities like art technical issues, or just be independent enough that they could go off and do their thing and I could trust I'd get solid on-target assets without any need for direction.

So I'm curious how you guys divide it up, if you're willing to share.

posted 09-01-2004 12:08 PM               

On the past project, our team had a lead artist who was solely responsible for the look of the game, assigning tasks, and communicating between departments. As a senior artis, I did a lot of the technical stuff myself...figuring out exactly HOW to do stuff, what worked well in the engine, what didn't, problem solving issues, etc. This wasn't really part of my job description, but someone needed to do it and I had the best grasp of the technical issues as well as a willingness to problem solve.

The other team had an AD and lead artist, the AD being from the film industry and the lead having experience in the game industry as wells being very tecnically minded. The AD could focus on concept art, gathering reference, and give feedback on the assets. The lead scheduled, doled out tasks, and also provided feedback and direction for the look of the game.

Pretty much both art teams have about as much say into the look of the game as the level designers, who are ultimately responsible for how their maps look and play. And EVERYONE is overruled by the producer/Director of Development...who is in turn a slave to whatever off the cuff idea the publisher comes up with and can't be talked out of.

Both teams had problems, but the overwhelming majority of them were related to communication.

For our current project, we're currently working with 2 leads. One who's responsible for characters, weapons, vehicles, and all that jazz and the other who's responsible for the world geometry. Not sure how this is going to work out, as there's a lot of overlap between these areas and it's going to depend heavily on how well the line of communication is between everyone and how well they all get along, so we'll see.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in the model of AD who has great vision and communication skills and lead artist, who has good organizational and technical know how as well as good communication skills. I say this simply because the mindset is so different. Very often people who make good ADs can't grasp the technical issues nearly as well. Conversely, technical people tend to censor themselves, "Oh we can't do that because it'd be too slow or require too much memory," so I feel they'd be working under a limitation if trying to do both.

Any Art Director who won't accept or consider feedback and suggestions from a lead, artist, level designer, or even programmer is generally an egotist and probably not doing a very good job.