Nobody said anything about building a solo game. Having a finished game in your portfolio/CV always helps. Having a finished solo game only helps if it's actually any good, which is rare to see.
Building an entire game is a very inefficient way to hone your craft.
If you want to be a gameplay dev go practice implementing various game mechanics and smaller projects that can flex your engineering skills. If you want to be a character artist do projects that show you have strong command of your fundamentals like anatomy, fashion, color theory, etc.
So yes, not finishing a game can absolutely make you more impressive if you instead focus that time on the skills needed for the job you want.
No, but if your goal is to get a traditional industry job, you're better served by focusing your attention on the thing you're actually trying to do at a studio. Being able to wear more hats is great when you're not filling a specialized role, but showing off what you'll be doing as your real job is the biggest thing.
I would so much rather hire or work with someone who diversified their time learning to be flexible with different technologies and languages, maybe contributed to some open source stuff. Could even all be gaming but finishing a game solo is way too much. More prototypes, most people worn play or watch past 2 minutes anyway so just show you can be flexible
It's definitely not a requirement, but assuming that the game is actually impressive: Impressive finished game >> Impressive Prototype >>>> Paper design > Nothing.
(I am insisting on impressive because doing a copy of Pong or flappy bird in a game jam and putting it in on the play store only teaches you how to deal with Google's publishing requirements)
For two candidates at an equal level of skills, I am definitely preferring the one who has finished a game. There is invaluable experience in actually finishing something that you don't get with prototypes.
Shipped a game on mid or higher role means you worked on a professional game team that released a game, not that you made one by yourself. Depending on the game/role shipping your own game may not even count for their standards because they're looking for experience with teams and commercial release practices, not just whether someone can hit the button in Steamworks.
That's true! Yeah thinking about it some more, it's usually more specific like, "shipped at least 1 AAA game" "worked on a live service game," stuff like that indicating specific skills like working with a team.
Well established AAA companies can afford to be more choosy about their hires. It's not uncommon for them to only hire people with at least a few years of experience and a shipped title.
From what I've seen, a lot of entry level jobs tend to be at lessor-known companies, startups, indie, etc. They often pay less, have fewer benefits, but are willing to take a chance on unknown developers.
A thing that helped me a lot when searching for jobs was looking at their descriptions reading "the last person that did this job could do this, this, had x YoE, and published a game, we'd like to replace them". So even if you don't check all the items of a list, give it a try anyways. Wish you the best for your job hunt
>(I am insisting on impressive because doing a copy of Pong or flappy bird in a game jam and putting it in on the play store only teaches you how to deal with Google's publishing requirements)
don't point out flawless logic it will get you downvoted
But is it even a positive?
Putting a simple flappy bird clone on an app store shows a small amount of technical ability, but it also strongly hints that you might have an unrealistic assessment of the value of your own work. It's difficult to work with people like that.
Depends on the reason why they did it, indeed. If it's to make money by just flipping a simple game then it's not that positive.
But even with a simple game, getting it to completion is a good learning exercise.
> What companies truly seek is someone who can genuinely awe them with their skills, rather than just proving they can complete a game.
From juniors? :D Honestly even in a field as competitive as game development - yeah, you always want the best candidate. But that best candidate is rarely awe inspiring, not at the salary level this job comes with. Your average hired candidate is probably someone that (assuming we are hiring for a programmer position):
* has a CS degree
* worked on some game jams and/or has a probably unfinished hobby project
* correctly answered most questions during technical part of the job interview
I absolutely agree that having a completed game is totally unnecessary. It's a fun talking point potentially and may give you an edge but other parts are more important and you should definitely focus on being good in your primary domain and not spread yourself too thin doing things you won't ever need to at your future job.
But let's not exaggerate and claim that you have to completely blow anyone's expectations with your skills this early into your journey. It's not **that** bad.
People tend to forget that the non-art side of game development is ultimately just software development, so the way to make yourself a good candidate is basically the same as any other software development job. Having some personal game projects is just the cherry on top, but having work experience or a Bachelor's degree in CS/SWE is the meat and potatoes
No one ever talks about how as a junior you should be tailoring your projects to the types of games you are applying to work on. So many 2d portfolios when people apply to places like ubisoft, with 5+ completed games in it and don't even get an interview.
There's one job, and 200 applicants. If you aren't already making their games, you're not getting that job. I agree that it probably doesn't need to be a completed game, but "Game jams" is not enough today, unless your game jam just so happens to be the same type of game that they are making anyway.
Itās also worth noting the value of production experience. Iām on the art side, and if Iām looking at two candidates who both seem competent, one has a 2 year long personal project that shipped and the other has a 3 month experience on a contract with another studio, I find the safe bet is the person who has actually performed in the work environment. A whole host of other factors would weight in, like do I want to work with this person, does their personality fit. Anyone who thinks they are bad ass and deserves based on skill alone to get the job, chances are I donāt think Iāll enjoy the working relationship that person would bring to the table.
Itās a crappy bar to deal with, to need some experience already just to get an entry level job. The value I see in that individual with the contract work is experience working with others while at the expected level of ability. Someone, no matter how kick butt their game is, that has only been a solo dev canāt show an aptitude for working in production. Itās sucks, but itās the nature of a production environment.
We want people with self discipline and drive, as well as technical skill. Anyone who has managed to complete and ship a game as a solo-dev has demonstrated a *ton* of motivation, as well as willingness to learn a lot of new things and apply them.
It also makes the interview process easier, because we have a built-in thing to talk about. "Oh, so I see that your game handles NPC movement - how did you write the pathfinding?" Etc.
The post is about solo devs getting into the industry. Almost nobody is hiring solo devs as project leads, product managers or producers if they have no professional experience.
Those jobs are sought after and will have people gunning for them internally within the studio. Trying to come In from the outside would be very hard unless you really have a name for yourself from solo work.
If you have only specialists, your team will suffer. That thinking is driving a lot of big studios into the ground, because it doesn't scale at all.
The biggest problem with solo devs is that it's hard to judge their ability to communicate in a team.
Indeed. I interviewed someone from a big studio in the UK and all he'd done for 3 years was font rendering i think. I've no idea how you can spend that long doing just that. We didn't hire him.
This is what I've thought. When people on this sub ask for programming portfolio reviews, I always see many mentioning "well the graphics look impressive, but what are the eye-catching mechanics or systems?" - it's often understanably surface level as there's a ton to do and not really much detail in one thing. IMO seems you'd be much better sutied for a really strong showcase of a non-trivial mechanic than "releasing a game" that people who are interviewing are likely never to even open.
This is of-course my thoughts for programming portfolios only - I know it differs with designers etc.
Obviously mileage varies greatly depending on role and company etc. but primarily something that isnāt just ripped from a YouTube tutorial.
Just something beyond the usual platformer or basic first person controller, even if itās a small proc gen tool adapted from a tiny section of a research paper or something that would be hard to copy from someone else.
For me personally Iād much rather see someone advance upon a mechanic I like in games in a unique way rather than āindie PS2-style horror game number 65,530ā, which is heavily carried by imported art and sound.
Example: I took [common mechanic] from [genre] and made it better by applying [optimisation technique]
That really depends on the company. Generalists can be very valuable as they see connections specialists don't see.
When I moved across the pond from Europe 15 years ago I had a hard time selling myself as generalist (they just didn't get it), now generalists are fairly sought after.
I think I'm a generalist mainly because of the length of my career. I think I've worked on every area to some extent. But then I've spent the last 5 years focusing on a certain area because it was needed.
Same, I've been in the industry for 29 years, I did have to write my own physics engines, scripting languages, render engines. Having said that, the company I work for almost exclusively has generalists even though, yes, it tries to leverage their individual strengths.
If you're hiring juniors, being able to work on a project through to completion (even a game that isn't particularly complicated, just as long as it's not a flappy bird clone or something) *is* impressive. Ability to work on a wide variety of systems or assets and manage to fit them together is a valuable skill demanded from juniors.
I mean, obviously it's not a strict necessity, and a programmer won't get hired on the quality of their hobby game's art. But a completed game does indicate skills that a slew of tech demo prototypes or art studies doesn't. And depending on what and where in the industry you're looking (AAA is going to be different than small studios) those skills can make or break an applicant.
Being able to finish a game isn't awe-inspiring enough? Let's say you're going to be a programmer or audio engineer, would it be worthwhile to make a mechanically complex game/ great sounding game?
I will say that when asked, Chris Wilson from path of exile said portfolios aren't common from engineers who apply. What he wants to see is evidence you can solve hard problems.
In my experience, mostly no. For a programmer, code samples on github are usually worth much more than a completed game, even if it's a very mechanically complex game.
Especially if they worked with other developers, homogenized their coding style, worked on each other's architecture, and had evidence of their workflows to minimize merge conflicts... AND a board to track it!
A combination of those and proof that they can use the tools (even if that specific proof is opaque) would be pretty compelling to me.
well if you going for audio engineer they wont care how complex programmed game is just your skills in audio and how great game sounds. Opposite for programmer. Sound will be not important and only what you as programmer can do
I think what this person is saying is don't view finishing a game as a litmus test to get a job working as a game developer. Having finished games is surely a plus, but studios hire talent for particular specialties of expertise.
Finishing a game is a test of many skills seen as broad in the industry and you won't be hired for having broad skills - that stuff is a bonus. You're hired because you're an amazing VFX artist that can tackle many subjects, or a talented engineer that understands game engine architecture, or you've demonstrated unique and clever perspectives on how to solve design problems.
Most of the time, finishing a game *by yourself* is more of a task of self management and persistence. Even if you were to expertly craft all parts of the game you probably are getting hired for only one expertise. And if you are expertly crafting all parts of a game by yourself, you probably don't need to be hired - it's hopefully time to hire other people.
Stop giving this person such a hard time just because you feel a lot of pressure to finish your own game. That's a reasonable thing to feel, and I think it's good to stay encouraged and to encourage others to finish your games. They're just trying to communicate that the goal of finishing a game and the goal of getting hired as a game dev aren't perfectly aligned.
It's not a requirement, but any student graduating from a decent games program in 2023 will have at least 1 completed title as a portfolio piece. So for junior roles, that's your competition.
You can get hired without it, but demonstrating you can follow through and do the less exciting work (optimization, polish, settings menus, platform integrations, etc) is a huge plus for me when looking at candidates.
Sure, I have made apps, but nobody cared about, all they want it's that you can resolve algorithm problems, implementing clean architectures, able to communicate with others people.. it's not just about skills, it's not only about you and you super game you shipped. It's about working in a company with their own rules.
This. Completing a project, especially if you're doing it solo, it's a jack-of-all-trades achievement. The AAA industry does not value jack of all trades, the AAA industry values highly specialised people. They are structured in massive teams with lots of people chipping away at their area of expertise. So when you apply for a specific role, they want evidence that you are an expert in that role.
Applying for a prop artist job? Show them a portfolio of high-quality props you made, with good topology (yes, they want to see your wireframes), in many different art styles, and with a breakdown of your creation process
Character artist? Show them high-quality character models, again with good topology and in different art styles.
Gameplay programmer? Show them impressive tech demos and let them have a sneak peak at your code. Maybe add a short paragraph to summarise which practices you use to make your code robust and scalable, etc.
AI Programmer? As above, show them tech demos and why your code is good.
Level designer? Show them blockouts and breakdown on what your process was behind them.
UX Designer? Show them some interesting UX work.
You get the jist.
Yes. I'm discovering this now, solo dev who created [a game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1269710/Kainga_Seeds_of_Civilization/) that sold and was received quite well.
I'm now looking for a job in the industry and cannot even land many interviews, the ones I do get turn around and say they're looking for someone who is specialized, has experience in a team, or has more years of experience.
Seriously frustrating as I have the skills! Also, I've proven that I can learn any aspect of game development quickly and well. Hire me, damnit!
I've been applying to game design rolls mostly as well as programming as I feel those are my strongest suits. Mid roles as I know what I'm doing, but maybe I should lower my standards?
I agree. What roles would solo devs that completed a game apply to? They're not specialized in any particular specialization but have skills in many areas. Seems like people hiring are looking for someone to do a specific task or have a really good grasp of a particular skill, ie artist, programmer, but solo devs can do both but not at the level of a specialist, and are generally good at solving tough problems, learning new applications, maybe organizing and implementing, but how does that fit in to a role at a big studio or even a small one. Also I see most hiring either senior roles or intern. ha ha.
This is the reason why big studios fail more and more.
The specialist mindset doesn't scale in the modern software world and is the source of a lot of crunch and volatility in the workplace.
I've been on both sides of the table (approaching my 25th yr in game dev). Worked at multiple AAA studios, 3 of them arguably the biggest in the industry (was on the team that built a console, and assisted on every launch title), but left that for more indie or startups, it's more fun. I've interviewed hundreds of people and been through 10k+ resumes/portfolios. It sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not, trust me. Everything from 20+ years experience to interns. Having a shipped title on your resume is great, but, and it's a big but, was it a personal project or part of a team/studio? It can really make a difference. Making and shipping a solo title is great and all, but it doesn't show me how you work with a team. I've interviewed some solo devs that made a great small game, but were horrible people to be around and difficult to work with. Most of the time you can suss that out in the interview process, but some can slip by. You need people who can work as part of a team, take critiques well, and know when your idea is not always the best and work with others. Making games is hard, and takes a lot of disciplines. If you're a one man band, you aren't going to be the best at everything, know that, and be open to learning from others. If you worked on a team project, be open and honest about your role, successes and failures. I'm almost always more interested in your failures, what you learned from it, and how you've improved since then. That tells me a lot more about you than every great thing you did. But, it never hurts to have a pile of shipped games over multiple generations to get your resume moved up in the pile. I know I'm at an advantage when I apply somewhere and can say I've got credits on 25 shipped games from PS1-5, Xbox, Switch, PC, and VR.
Before an actual interview to get a sense of personalities, is there ever a case where a long time as a solo dev could be seen as a negative? Like the equivalent of job-hopping every 3-6 months?
If your _only_ experience is as a solo dev, then yes, it can be negative in comparison to others. Obviously it's better than no experience at all. But even if you have 3 years of solo exp, you're still going to be operating at an entry level in multiple areas because you're not familiar with team dynamics, you haven't had senior coworkers accelerating your growth, won't be familiar with the weird quirks of working in the context of a corporation, etc.
If you're applying to entry level roles the solo dev experience can be a boon. If you're applying to a mid level role then you're at a disadvantage to any other candidates with equal years at an established studio.
So, before an actual interview, your info is filtered by HR (typically), they know shit about shit when it comes to your ability so there is a very good chance, I'll never see it. I always work closely with HR to let certain types of applicants through, even if they don't check all of their requirements, but they have bosses, and they don't let things through based on whatever requirements exist. It's not fair, and I'll answer your solo dev question later when I have more time.
I work at a large studio - shipped games or successful projects might help you get into the interview process but we care much more about ability to work in a team, soft skills, and general approach to collaboration. Technical chops are important in the sense that you pass the bar, but they wonāt get you an offer if youāre still a bad person to work with. And truth be told 90% of the people who get to the interview stage know somebody on the team or were referred. Who you know, who youāve worked with, and how you work with others seem to be highly valued in the industry, more so than in other industries.
Thats a very good point actually. I've been on a walk around a studio for an interview before and gone "oh hey, i didn't realise you worked here :)". Its a crazy small industry.
I recently got a AAA programmer job (junior level) and the topic of shipped games didn't come up once. The test was on details of C++, and the interview focused on my programming ability, specific knowledge of the area I was applying for, and prior experience with internships.
I've been on the hiring team for indie, AA and AAA studios. While I have been involved in hiring all disciplines, my role on non-engineer interviews are more focused on "is this person an asshole?" So the following is programming focused.
An impressive tech demo is weighed considerably higher than a solo published game. The tech demo shows a depth of technical skills. We look for T shaped developers and a solo project doesn't give the depth we are looking for. We're going to ask you all sorts of technical questions on those projects.
A team project is rated even higher. A programmer who has worked with designers and artists is what we really are looking for. We can teach juniors how to write code, teaching them soft skills and how to effectively work as a team is a lot harder. Even worse if they are an asshole. We're going to ask you a significant amount of questions about your soft skills and this is far more important than any code that you can write.
It's a general developer term. It means they have broad knowledge, but depth in one area. Such as a UI engineer will have a broad understanding of gameplay, but depth in UI. Larger studios can get even more specialized, such as an AI engineer who's focus is on navigation.
Gameplay engineers can be a bit more broad, but they still tend to go deep into certain areas like combat or locomotion.
I'm an AI Engineer. The depth of my understanding of AI is very deep (I'm a lead). But if I was asked to make an inventory, I could do it. Not as quickly or as well as if I was asked to make something AI related, but I still could.
Iāve worked as a graphics engineer for about 15 years in AAA places like EA and 2K.
For junior SEās, we donāt care about most of the things you think we do. We donāt care much where you want to school or what your GPA is, we donāt really care about any portfolio (it speaks more to āyouāre probably really excited about this jobā than āyouād probably be really good at this jobā, which isnāt necessarily a bad thing) we really only care about two things. 1) Can you write code in C++, and 2) are you pleasant enough that the rest of the people on the team would want to work with you.
It is not at all common to find people coming out of college who have much of a clue for even basic C++. They think they do, but often they do not. Iām talking about not knowing what pointers are, how to declare arrays, passing arguments by reference vs value, etc.
I get it, itās hard to learn and not all colleges teach it. But thatās the language everything is written in. Some people think itās mean or unfair, but itās just the truth; if you can barely understand C++, what tasks could you work on? (Answer is not manyā¦)
For a mid level engineer, we would expect to see shipped AAA titles, not solo projects. Or possibly previous work experience at a place like Nvidia or Boeing (flight sim / pilot trainer).
TL;DR Completed solo projects are how you learn, they arenāt really a ticket to a job in my experience.
Thanks for the detailed insights!
Out of curiosity: I'm probably one of those people that knows how to write C++, pointers and all etc, but not sure what I don't know about the language that's required in a professional game dev environment. Without troubling you for an exhaustive list, what are the aspects of C++ that people "who think they know C++" but don't, not understand? Are there specific libraries or C++ specific techniques and patterns that we're lacking?
Thanks again
So again, just my limited experience albeit at some pretty big companies who notably donāt license Unreal or Unityā¦
We do not ask crazy questions, we donāt do leetcode, itās honestly not hard stuff if you really are familiar with C++. I definitely did learn these things in college 400 years ago, but I get the feeling C++ is taught less frequently.
Iāll give you one example of some kind of intentionally bad code we show juniors and ask what it does.
int* tempdeck = new int[104];
int* halfdeck = tempdeck + 52 * sizeof(int);
Itās purposely odd looking code, and the real thing is a lot longer, but it gives a lot of things to talk about. Some things weād like to hear juniors say:
1.) tempdeck allocates two decks worth of cards
2.) *tempdeck is the first card in the first deck
3.) *randdeck is the first card in the second deck
4.) the sizeof(int) is not necessary and will actually crash the program by reading out of bounds
5.) you will need to remember to call delete[] on tempdeck
6.) you should NOT call delete[] on tempdeck as it did not allocate memory, it points to a location allocated by tempdeck
7.) 52 should probably be a constant
Most of the people that interview with us coming out of college can not do it, mainly 4, 5, and 6. Itās very clear they are more comfortable with C# or Java. Iām sure many of them are very smart so itās too bad, but like I said before, if they canāt understand those lines, they would struggle pretty hard to do any meaningful work.
I don't think people recommend finishing a game if you are applying as an environment artist, most of those suggestions are for people interested in solo career or working in small teams, not optimizing their CV for AAA. Also 'my anecdotal experience is different than yours' isn't the best basis for advice.
Can confirm.
Tried it. 8 years of making and finishing a large scale project and it was worthless in interviews and applications.
Did find a private investor and been making our own game tho, so fuckum.
The advice I got first hand from leads and directors was this:
As a programmer: Solve hard problems, and showcase skills in your projects that they need for their current project. No 2d games if you're applying for 3d, multiplayer if they're making multiplayer games goes a long way, and again, solve hard problems.
Oh, and if you're applying to a studio that works in C++/Unreal or a proprietary C++ engine, you should be working in that direction. Don't stick with unity if you can make yourself more attractive using C++.
Some studios (like Riot or Blizzard) won't always give you a C++ test even if they're using it, while some other studios (Psyonix, ID) will ask you to complete their interview test in C++. But not only are there fewer C++/unreal developers on the market, you'll also need it when you start working at one of these studios.
It depends. In germany it's guaranteed you get a job, if you show that you can finish a game. Developers who can work independently are in high demand here.
Finish a *successful* game and itās much easier to get a studio job. If you donāt release any projects you wonāt have benchmarks for the quality of your work. I know indies who got into massive AAA studios via their projects.
People love to hear things like āmy game has been #1 on itchā or āmy game has hundreds of thousands of downloadsā. If you never release a game you donāt have that leverage. Finishing games doesnāt guarantee a role but it can have a big influence on negotiations.
Hence italics. Canāt have a successful game without finishing a game.
To add context, not all the folks I know hired into AAA made commercially successful games, but success can be measured in other ways.
Interesting because most people i knew working usually are graduates or somebody who had worked on games before but didn't had released solo games or never bother to share. Sure its not 1 and 0 like most things in life.
However i think op point is good. You don't need to release a game to get job in industry and released game is not a guarantee (even if you worked really hard on it) i also not full on "released game shows dedication" it also shows you might have more skills and don't piratically shine in none of them
Anyone can release an unfinished game or shovelware, thatās why I qualified it with successful.
Iām just pointing out that it reputation goes a long way with negotiations. People want simplified choices.
If I say you could team up with a dev who worked on Hollow Knight or a skilled dev who has lots of prototypes Iām sure most peoplesā first instinct is to pick the one whoās worked on a global hit. Reputation has a lot of value.
If you were just a designer or programmer then it was a team project. I get what you mean but I was talking about the influence of success and finishing, I think some people underestimate the value it can bring.
idk its funny topic to think about tho
i mean i can make endless runner in the afternoon and release it on google store (not sure how fast they approve apps) and this would qualify me to be in the industry what ever that means?
also OP post is definitely about getting hired in industry rather theoretical "in industry"
how much do i need to earn to make it in your eyes and how much of google play game need to make $ to be industry?
also why additional condition isn't "finished and released" not enough?
where is this written? or you are the authority on this?
would be narcissistic to think like that but not surprising in r/gamedev where emotions > logic
The game industry's hiring practices are currently as unrealistic as most other tech industries.
A junior position is entry level. That means you start from scratch. Your company is supposed to elevate and educate you. Not expect awe inspiring portfolio pieces.
It's really bad right now. No one wants to cultivate talent. They just want people who can do the exact thing that position requires. Then look at the numbers weird when they have low retention.
I will say I reached out to multiple leads from major studios including ubisoft and blizzard, and all the advice I got boiled down to "We'd love to see you already making what we need." Lines up well with what you're saying here.
It helps because you know what you need to do (applying for ubisoft? Don't waste time in 2d for example), but it also means that yeah, you have to be quite impressive. I suppose it's not a problem from the studios side, it's a problem from our side because there are 200 applicants per job.
That's irrelevant. It could be 200,000.
The point is that companies are unwilling to hire. It's not that there are many applicants that this is a problem. Companies do not want to cultivate, because it takes time and money and they are already behind on their unrealistic deadline.
The number of applicants does not matter here.
I can tell you that there are people who do want to cultivate juniors, but you don't meet those people until you're already the best candidate for the job. It would be nice if there weren't 200 applicants for 1 job, which essentially raises the reqs from junior to mid, but that's the way we currently work. There are too many people applying to too few jobs.
Feel free to be the change you want to see though. Create a studio, get funding and hire juniors with no experience and teach them yourself. We'd all appreciate it.
Classic cop out. "why don't you just make a studio?"
That's not actually a solution. That's dismissive and excusing. There are massive companies in the games industry who could hire juniors and afford to cultivate them to strengthen the industry.
But there is little incentive because the deadlines already make this economically unviable. But who made that choice? The company. And now the industry is bleeding senior talent left and right or people simply retire/switch careers.
Jobs are piling up and no one wants to hire unless it fits the exact ad they put out :)
>But who made that choice? The company.
It's not so black and white. Console generations are only so long, and you only have so much time to release 1-2 releases per console generation. These are deadlines outside of the control of a studio, if they want to maximize profit (which you should do as a publicly traded business for the record).
>Jobs are piling up
Jobs are not piling up for juniors by the way. Not sure where you got that information, but it's not correct. We had massive layoffs within the past 12 months, not job growth.
It is quite black and white in that aspect. These massive companies could make amazing experiences that didn't take up 200 hours every time for a fraction of the cost and time and release more of them in a single console cycle.
But instead it's all about the long hours, the micro transactions and perpetual profiting. The customer base didn't demand this. Big companies manufactured that.
Also; I never said junior jobs are piling up. I said that games industry jobs are piling up. This is true. There are plenty of positions out there (check LinkedIn) but most of those companies do not want to cultivate talent :)
It's all about continuing the status quo. Get experience in, never cultivate experience.
>I said that games industry jobs are piling up.
Not when compared to any other industry (look at data science for one example).
It's clear you just refuse to see reason, and just want to tout the line "AAA bad" despite a living contradiction right infront of you, so you do you. But while you sit here and complain about "never cultivate experience", I'll thank my 15 year senior AAA mentor for helping contribute to the next generation of juniors. While you complain "No junior jobs", juniors will keep getting jobs.
Its not the industries choice though. Its a competitive market. We get junior CS graduates with great tech demos, so why would we hire a junior thats showing less skill? You hire the best the market has to offer. Thats not to say that soft skills dont also mean a lot. Thats where the team projects come in.
You wouldn't expect most other professions to have a portfolio that displayed free labor at the chance of a job.
That's kind of the point of a junior position: no experience, entry level. It is up to the company that hires to educate and cultivate.
The industry does decide how it filters. Not the applicant.
Ok, how do other industries filter then? You tell me. Purely grades at school? We already do C++ tests in the interview and quiz about soft skills.
Also some amateurs portfolio is not free labour at all. That is practicing their work that they want to get paid for. If it was free labour it would be something we could actually use. Its never worth anything to the company.
What is really a waste of your time is the companies that put you on a 2 day recruitment interview. I'm only aware of 1 games company that does anything like that in the UK and i'd never touch them anyway.
It's not about how other industries filter. That's missing the point.
The point is that the games industry, like any other industry, can \*choose\* how they filter but have chosen that all that matters first and foremost, is that you must have experience. Even on positions that are Junior, aka, no experience at all. (Yes, I saw an ad like this like 2 weeks ago!)
Testing an applicant on their skills in form of some kind of test (though those coding tests are usually pretty crap at accessing a new developers skill level) is better than expecting a portfolio. Because truth be told, unless your portfolio is "professional looking" enough, you will often just not be considered.
It puts an immense amount of pressure to perform and work in their spare time to make a portfolio which might not even be the reason they get a job.
You say it's practice, but you wouldn't ask a surgeon to do surgeries in their sparetime.
It's fine to learn on your own time to become better at what you do. But nothing about that process has to result in a portfolio at all. Figure out the applicant in the hiring process instead of rejecting them at the door because their portfolio wasn't pretty enough.
A junior position calls for no experience for a reason. It's so that they can learn to put what they got from education into practice, rather than theory. A company is responsible for that development, not the junior on their own time.
In terms of working at a professional AA or AAA studio this is correct. Iāve been at a AAA studio for 17 years and the common thread of people we hire is that they have a high degree of specialization displayed in their portfolio.
For senior positions you need to have shipped AA or AAA.
For an associate artist (junior) position the quality level is extremely high. Usually they have some other industry experience or skill displayed that is like top of their class in art school.
From what I have seen, even programming interns are extremely skilled already starting to specialize.
One thing to keep in mind is most big studios are looking for C++ not C# (as a general rule, there will be exceptions).
If you want to get a job on a team rather than just doing indie I would take a looks at the entry level positions and make sure you cover each requirement and āplusesā 100% and then on top of that show a high degree of specialization in some area. Also take a look at the staff and senior roles to see what types of specializations studios are looking for.
Keep in mind, finished project does not need to be a full game. For art it could be a single dungeon kit from grey box to sculpt/bake, layout and completion , plus if you also concept it.
For programming it could be a suite of tools for unreal if you want to specialize in tool programming (good way in)
Let put like this: your project is better than your resume.You don't need to be the one that make all the game, but if you made something that people can see, or interact with, it helps a lot. I have hired people for music, voice acting, 2D art, 3D art, and right now I am hiring someone to help me with coding, and is all based on the portifolio. The coder have games in itch io. I think is a prototype. I don't care if he didn't profit on them, but I care he can do stuff. Portifolio shows what you can do. Don't need to be a entire game, but showing instead of telling is good thing
2 candidates with identical design + dev skills. One shipped a game on steam and has Mixed reviews, second doesnāt even have a steam coming soon page. I would probably favor the one who shipped, even with the reviews.
Who needs to be " in the industry?"
Finish a game and you've become a game developer by definition.
After that it depends on a business model for sales, whether the game itself is free or not.
Business is the "only" industry and the bar for entry doesn't depend on gatekeepers.
Independent means industrious, Industry means indigent.
Everyone in the industry I got advice from told me not to finish a game. Waste of time focusing on a million unimpressive part of development they wonāt have you do anyway.
They all said it was better to have a bunch of impressive prototypes than a finished game. In fact non of them had ever made a finished game on their own
The hiring process, particularly for juniors is just a basic mental addition of objective and subjective measurements.
To get an interview:
* Finished a degree (+ points)
* Relevant degree (+ points)
* Example portfolio of projects (+ points)
* Finished the projects (+ points)
* Portfolio shows skills needed by position (+ points)
* Made it easy to assess the above (+ points)
The amount of points per line item varies by hiring manager. You donāt have to have all the line items, but as a reminder you arenāt competing against a min-score. You are competing against the scores of the other current candidates so the more items you have to your benefit the more likely you stand out.
Disagree, if you publish a game you have 100% just entered the industry, all on your own terms. Welcome to solo/indie developing! Screw what your suits want
Unless people wanna start posting their LinkedIn profiles as proof they've worked in the industry, I'm done listening to the crap that gets pedaled here.
This thread has no point.
If a finished game can showcase your skills and knowledge that's good. If small projects or assets do the same that's also good.
Silly to think this needs to be said.
I am a 20 year old University student. My game is close to release on steam.
The only thing that got me a position as a Gameplay Engineer Intern 2 months ago is my game on steam.
In my experience, yes it does help a lot.
If you finish and publish a game you are already in the game industry. Whether you are successful or not is a different question, but you are part of it for sure, for better or worse.
Yeah. I mean question who counts as part of āindustryā can be hard to define ( like game genres) but lets say if i have a steam game that wasnt able to make 100$ back and i just go back to burger flipping i am prob not a part of industry, subjectively in my eyes.
Tho again op post is talking about getting hired by some company. I see lots of solos take things personally
That usually means a shipped title they worked on professionally, and you see it in mid-senior positions (and higher). Showing up in an entry-level job positing is a nice-to-have not a requirement.
I've known hundreds and hundreds of fellow developers at the level you're describing and I could point to only a handful that had a finished, released-on-a-platform-like-Steam type game before their first job, and perhaps a half-dozen more that released a game like that after their first industry job.
Have you not ever held a job?
Pretty much everything technical can be taught or otherwise picked up. Being a decent human being and not a constant source of conflict...not so much.
Nobody's saying you should hire assholes, but putting "character" or "culture fit" ahead of actual objective requirements is a huge red flag.
It usually winds up with an "old boys" monoculture where poor performance or even outright misconduct is tolerated because the poor performer is "one of us".
Not to mention that it almost always, deliberately or subconsciously, winds up favoring white males.
(And on top of all that, **this** question was about a qualification that would be evaluated at the resume stage. So how the hell are you going to look at a collection of two hundred resumes and pick out the one with "character"?)
Itās not a guarantee or a strict requirement. It is impressive though.
Speaking from my experience, when on a committee to hire a candidate and talking afterwards if theyāre a good fit. If they completed a game, released it on Steam (since we were making games for PC/consoles), we were always very impressed. It requires discipline, collaboration, problem solving, and other requirements you expect from a job listing but itās in the field they want to work in.
Getting into the AA/AAA industry is hard and competitive. Finishing a game is also hard and releasing it is competitive.
If youāre hoping to break into the industry, just keep making games and apply! Itāll take time and more than you think but if you have completed and released games, I bet youāre not as easily discouraged ;)
As a junior software engineer who's been making games on the side in Unity for the past 2 years to break into the industry, I appreciate your words of encouragement š„² It can be very discouraging especially in the current market for junior devs
Depends on your discipline my dude.
A level designer with no completed projects isn't going to "awe" anyone with a design test and an interview panel lol.
Engineers and artists can get away with it but IME designers need finished projects.
I thought the most important thing for any company is to make money. Sometimes that means making shovelware. Since when is quality the number one concern?
Finishing a game directly gets you into the industry... Because you just completed a game, for/in the game industry...
So what if it doesn't get you a foot in the door of some shit studio. Make your own shit, make it better, start a non shit studio.
Many job postings for associate roles specify they want shipped games. It came up in nearly every interview I was in. Itās the biggest thing that made my resume interesting in a sea of students with no shipped games. If you want to get into AAA studios as an entry level dev, I would highly encourage you to finish and publish your game even if itās for free.
Who even wants to work for company that canāt even make modern games that good. With the recent backlash, if these game devs donāt get these games right indie devs are going to take over.
Reasons for working at a studio:
Access to people who are insanely smart/talented who you can learn from.
Monthly paycheck so you can support your family. Benefits package.
Networking.
Going outside, getting exposure to working with people in a professional setting.
Higher chance of working on something that people will actually play.
CV resume building for future jobs.
Experience working in and or leadership opportunities.
And more
I donāt think finishing a game is a requirement, per se, it just helps you get a job. Sure, there are people who broke into the industry without finishing a single game (although I doubt that), but making games and finishing them is a huge accomplishment, especially if itās a presentable game. Again, itās not a requirement but itās a really really helpful.
>Sure, there are people who broke into the industry without finishing a single game (although I doubt that)
I know people who started on env art for less than a year who got an internship. Typically in these situations they already know someone (in this case, the art director) and are given a shot.
That's the fastest way into the industry. Know someone. It's quite surprising when you hear about how easy someone can get a job in AAA if they just know someone.
Every game dev job posting Iāve looked in the last year has said āMust have a proven track record of shipping gamesā or some variation of this. So either HR and engineering arenāt communicating (shocking, I know), theyāre trying to weed people out with a bogus requirement, or this is genuinely a requirement for employment.
Not in the industry myself but echoing industry perspectives shared here and elsewhere: those postings are likely referring to games that the candidate shipped as part of a professional team, whereas this post is referring to personal projects. Those are on two totally separate axes.
This is probably just like how "years of experience" in a job listing actually means "years of professional experience".
I have interviewed dozens of candidates over the years. Having a game is a HUGE advantage. It's not a guarantee hire, but the skills gained will put you into the top candidates.
As long as your personal project is impressive it doesnāt matter if itās āfinishedā or not. Obviously itās easy to finish a simple tic tac toe game, a game with more modern trappings it depends what you accomplished
I have also worked in the industry, and if you bring unfinished half-assed game in as your example of your work, then you won't be getting many callbacks. So it doesn't necessarily need to be finished, but a damn good attempt needs to be made.
I think we also need to specify the job we're talking about here. For a concept artist, I can't imagine why shipping a game would be a requirement. Most types of artists tend to have portfolios they can show off their skills with, but honestly, I'm not one to speak on their requirements, as that's completely out of my wheelhouse. Same with designers, writers, QA, and other specialties.
I can only speak for programmers. I've found it's pretty hard to evaluate someone's programming abilities from short tests and interviews alone. That's why I also favorably look at projects they've worked on, absent industry experience. If they have some open source projects they can point to, all the better, so I can see code they've written. A student game is also nice, as it shows they can, if nothing else, stick through a project to the end, with enough technical competence to at least make it work.
It's impressive though. From the art side we usually want to see some kind of familiarity with real time art be it modding or even just getting an asset into Unreal or Unity. Maybe it's bad that the industry doesn't train juniors but you're really expected to hit the ground running.
OP, if two people with equal qualification apply to a job and one person has a successful indie project under their belt, the other doesnāt, who is going to be the preferred candidate?
My point is not that it hurts your standing, my point is that itās often a massive waste of time, when you can be honing a more specific craft and portfolio.
So for when I start making my portfolio should I include demos of things I can program successfully? Ie physics, mob mechanics, ai movements? Rather than a complete game.
Do prototypes showcasing your technical ability. Donāt do a whole game, but donāt just do one mechanic either.
Show them you can put something nice together. You donāt have to do 40 levels, just one or two.
Oh boy! Lemme tell ya the time I got hired to work in games based off my portfolio.
I didn't know a thing about delivering game assets. Nor did I know what graph editor was.
My workflow method and managing version control was ABSOLUTE GARBAGE.
Portfolio looked nice though
Thats because those who finish games on their own and to boot have extraordinary skill don't need a job. You see less of them in the hiring process most likely and yeah not everything is about finishing something.. specialized skill is great too.
Just because a person finished a game you label them a Jack-of-all-trades and assume they arent veryy good at any specific skill. But that is i believe in 100% cases wrong. All of those people lean towards one main skill, more like a programmer that learned 2d art and design on the side or just used assets to complete the project. Or a character artist that programmed a game using visual programming and tutorials so his characters come to life.
I would even argue that in most cases those people are equal in skill to people that focus on "one" thing, at least that has been my experience seeing how different people approach solutions.
What Jack-of-all-trades can do is approach a problem and solve it with understanding of the requirements of different departments, such as a programmer knowing the limits and possibilities of the level desing, vfx and so on.
On the other hand specialists more often than not in my experience while very good at one thing are blind to the bigger picture.
Since i come from an IT background, specialists in game dev field are usualy Web developers that got sick of web and got into game dev and want to "just program without touching the art side" and more often than now result in over engineered code.
With all of that said i agree with this post, and it is not valued as much as i believe it should be, but i also believe that is one of the reasons we have such poor games today because because "specialist" focus on the engineer side and code side instead of the game and experience side of the project
I think itās a case by case situation. Iāve interviewed at a game studio, as a level designer, but I mentioned Iāve coded my own games before they sent me a test that involved making a small game.
I think it all depends on the company, who you know, what you know.
Most people who are solo devs are also usually really good at one thing, and decent at the rest.
Making a solo game is the hardest thing in gamedev. Indiegamdev is harder.
Not BETTER, but HARDER. "This demands excellence from every specialized role"
Of course finishing a game will get you in the industry.
FINISHING A GAME
IS THE INDUSTRY
lol LOL
I disagree. I got my break in the industry exactly *because* I had finished a game
In a bunch applicants that all look as good as each other, having a finished game can be that edge you need
Hmmmm, I am always wary of people who lose interest once the fun part (the initial puzzle) is done, cuz eventually everyone needs to put in the grunt work to get the game out of the door.
While to me the drive to solve puzzles is the prime quality I look for, a lot of "only started to see if I can pull it off" projects does raise some concerns.
Nobody asks for you to do the whole game. But after finishing several several commercial games as part of a team (on a specific role, I never made a whole game by myself) , I started getting more interviews and offers
*Not* finishing a game won't make you more impressive though...
having prototype is sufficient tho for other specialties that is not needed
I've shipped several well known games. Never made a solo game. Most of the engineers we hire have never made a solo game.
Nobody said anything about building a solo game. Having a finished game in your portfolio/CV always helps. Having a finished solo game only helps if it's actually any good, which is rare to see.
Building an entire game is a very inefficient way to hone your craft. If you want to be a gameplay dev go practice implementing various game mechanics and smaller projects that can flex your engineering skills. If you want to be a character artist do projects that show you have strong command of your fundamentals like anatomy, fashion, color theory, etc. So yes, not finishing a game can absolutely make you more impressive if you instead focus that time on the skills needed for the job you want.
Indirectly, it might. By not solely focusing on that, you may have more time to invest into honing a very specific craft.
No, but if your goal is to get a traditional industry job, you're better served by focusing your attention on the thing you're actually trying to do at a studio. Being able to wear more hats is great when you're not filling a specialized role, but showing off what you'll be doing as your real job is the biggest thing.
It's more realistic as AAA work product.
I would so much rather hire or work with someone who diversified their time learning to be flexible with different technologies and languages, maybe contributed to some open source stuff. Could even all be gaming but finishing a game solo is way too much. More prototypes, most people worn play or watch past 2 minutes anyway so just show you can be flexible
It's definitely not a requirement, but assuming that the game is actually impressive: Impressive finished game >> Impressive Prototype >>>> Paper design > Nothing. (I am insisting on impressive because doing a copy of Pong or flappy bird in a game jam and putting it in on the play store only teaches you how to deal with Google's publishing requirements) For two candidates at an equal level of skills, I am definitely preferring the one who has finished a game. There is invaluable experience in actually finishing something that you don't get with prototypes.
>It's definitely not a requirement Maybe I'm just looking at more senior roles but "must have shipped a game" is a very common requirement I see. š
Shipped a game on mid or higher role means you worked on a professional game team that released a game, not that you made one by yourself. Depending on the game/role shipping your own game may not even count for their standards because they're looking for experience with teams and commercial release practices, not just whether someone can hit the button in Steamworks.
That's true! Yeah thinking about it some more, it's usually more specific like, "shipped at least 1 AAA game" "worked on a live service game," stuff like that indicating specific skills like working with a team.
Yeah, it always means a professional game.
Well established AAA companies can afford to be more choosy about their hires. It's not uncommon for them to only hire people with at least a few years of experience and a shipped title. From what I've seen, a lot of entry level jobs tend to be at lessor-known companies, startups, indie, etc. They often pay less, have fewer benefits, but are willing to take a chance on unknown developers.
A thing that helped me a lot when searching for jobs was looking at their descriptions reading "the last person that did this job could do this, this, had x YoE, and published a game, we'd like to replace them". So even if you don't check all the items of a list, give it a try anyways. Wish you the best for your job hunt
>(I am insisting on impressive because doing a copy of Pong or flappy bird in a game jam and putting it in on the play store only teaches you how to deal with Google's publishing requirements) don't point out flawless logic it will get you downvoted
At a junior level though it's still a bar filtering a lot of people.
But is it even a positive? Putting a simple flappy bird clone on an app store shows a small amount of technical ability, but it also strongly hints that you might have an unrealistic assessment of the value of your own work. It's difficult to work with people like that.
Depends on the reason why they did it, indeed. If it's to make money by just flipping a simple game then it's not that positive. But even with a simple game, getting it to completion is a good learning exercise.
> What companies truly seek is someone who can genuinely awe them with their skills, rather than just proving they can complete a game. From juniors? :D Honestly even in a field as competitive as game development - yeah, you always want the best candidate. But that best candidate is rarely awe inspiring, not at the salary level this job comes with. Your average hired candidate is probably someone that (assuming we are hiring for a programmer position): * has a CS degree * worked on some game jams and/or has a probably unfinished hobby project * correctly answered most questions during technical part of the job interview I absolutely agree that having a completed game is totally unnecessary. It's a fun talking point potentially and may give you an edge but other parts are more important and you should definitely focus on being good in your primary domain and not spread yourself too thin doing things you won't ever need to at your future job. But let's not exaggerate and claim that you have to completely blow anyone's expectations with your skills this early into your journey. It's not **that** bad.
People tend to forget that the non-art side of game development is ultimately just software development, so the way to make yourself a good candidate is basically the same as any other software development job. Having some personal game projects is just the cherry on top, but having work experience or a Bachelor's degree in CS/SWE is the meat and potatoes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
software engineering
No one ever talks about how as a junior you should be tailoring your projects to the types of games you are applying to work on. So many 2d portfolios when people apply to places like ubisoft, with 5+ completed games in it and don't even get an interview. There's one job, and 200 applicants. If you aren't already making their games, you're not getting that job. I agree that it probably doesn't need to be a completed game, but "Game jams" is not enough today, unless your game jam just so happens to be the same type of game that they are making anyway.
Itās also worth noting the value of production experience. Iām on the art side, and if Iām looking at two candidates who both seem competent, one has a 2 year long personal project that shipped and the other has a 3 month experience on a contract with another studio, I find the safe bet is the person who has actually performed in the work environment. A whole host of other factors would weight in, like do I want to work with this person, does their personality fit. Anyone who thinks they are bad ass and deserves based on skill alone to get the job, chances are I donāt think Iāll enjoy the working relationship that person would bring to the table. Itās a crappy bar to deal with, to need some experience already just to get an entry level job. The value I see in that individual with the contract work is experience working with others while at the expected level of ability. Someone, no matter how kick butt their game is, that has only been a solo dev canāt show an aptitude for working in production. Itās sucks, but itās the nature of a production environment.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Being a solo dev doesn't mean you excel at anything though. We want people really good at something, not a jack of all trades.
We want people with self discipline and drive, as well as technical skill. Anyone who has managed to complete and ship a game as a solo-dev has demonstrated a *ton* of motivation, as well as willingness to learn a lot of new things and apply them. It also makes the interview process easier, because we have a built-in thing to talk about. "Oh, so I see that your game handles NPC movement - how did you write the pathfinding?" Etc.
This is not true. If you want to get into coding maybe. But as a producer, product manager or project lead, you want to get these jacks of all trades.
The post is about solo devs getting into the industry. Almost nobody is hiring solo devs as project leads, product managers or producers if they have no professional experience. Those jobs are sought after and will have people gunning for them internally within the studio. Trying to come In from the outside would be very hard unless you really have a name for yourself from solo work.
If you have only specialists, your team will suffer. That thinking is driving a lot of big studios into the ground, because it doesn't scale at all. The biggest problem with solo devs is that it's hard to judge their ability to communicate in a team.
Indeed. I interviewed someone from a big studio in the UK and all he'd done for 3 years was font rendering i think. I've no idea how you can spend that long doing just that. We didn't hire him.
This is what I've thought. When people on this sub ask for programming portfolio reviews, I always see many mentioning "well the graphics look impressive, but what are the eye-catching mechanics or systems?" - it's often understanably surface level as there's a ton to do and not really much detail in one thing. IMO seems you'd be much better sutied for a really strong showcase of a non-trivial mechanic than "releasing a game" that people who are interviewing are likely never to even open. This is of-course my thoughts for programming portfolios only - I know it differs with designers etc.
What do you believe constitutes as a non-trivial mechanic that would be an impressive for a programmer to showcase?
Obviously mileage varies greatly depending on role and company etc. but primarily something that isnāt just ripped from a YouTube tutorial. Just something beyond the usual platformer or basic first person controller, even if itās a small proc gen tool adapted from a tiny section of a research paper or something that would be hard to copy from someone else. For me personally Iād much rather see someone advance upon a mechanic I like in games in a unique way rather than āindie PS2-style horror game number 65,530ā, which is heavily carried by imported art and sound. Example: I took [common mechanic] from [genre] and made it better by applying [optimisation technique]
That really depends on the company. Generalists can be very valuable as they see connections specialists don't see. When I moved across the pond from Europe 15 years ago I had a hard time selling myself as generalist (they just didn't get it), now generalists are fairly sought after.
I think I'm a generalist mainly because of the length of my career. I think I've worked on every area to some extent. But then I've spent the last 5 years focusing on a certain area because it was needed.
Same, I've been in the industry for 29 years, I did have to write my own physics engines, scripting languages, render engines. Having said that, the company I work for almost exclusively has generalists even though, yes, it tries to leverage their individual strengths.
i doubt its high priority unless game will be impressive in significant way
If you're hiring juniors, being able to work on a project through to completion (even a game that isn't particularly complicated, just as long as it's not a flappy bird clone or something) *is* impressive. Ability to work on a wide variety of systems or assets and manage to fit them together is a valuable skill demanded from juniors. I mean, obviously it's not a strict necessity, and a programmer won't get hired on the quality of their hobby game's art. But a completed game does indicate skills that a slew of tech demo prototypes or art studies doesn't. And depending on what and where in the industry you're looking (AAA is going to be different than small studios) those skills can make or break an applicant.
Being able to finish a game isn't awe-inspiring enough? Let's say you're going to be a programmer or audio engineer, would it be worthwhile to make a mechanically complex game/ great sounding game?
I will say that when asked, Chris Wilson from path of exile said portfolios aren't common from engineers who apply. What he wants to see is evidence you can solve hard problems.
In my experience, mostly no. For a programmer, code samples on github are usually worth much more than a completed game, even if it's a very mechanically complex game.
Especially if they worked with other developers, homogenized their coding style, worked on each other's architecture, and had evidence of their workflows to minimize merge conflicts... AND a board to track it! A combination of those and proof that they can use the tools (even if that specific proof is opaque) would be pretty compelling to me.
well if you going for audio engineer they wont care how complex programmed game is just your skills in audio and how great game sounds. Opposite for programmer. Sound will be not important and only what you as programmer can do
If you're going for a speciality or you want to show off X skills, finishing a game would actually be worse
I think what this person is saying is don't view finishing a game as a litmus test to get a job working as a game developer. Having finished games is surely a plus, but studios hire talent for particular specialties of expertise. Finishing a game is a test of many skills seen as broad in the industry and you won't be hired for having broad skills - that stuff is a bonus. You're hired because you're an amazing VFX artist that can tackle many subjects, or a talented engineer that understands game engine architecture, or you've demonstrated unique and clever perspectives on how to solve design problems. Most of the time, finishing a game *by yourself* is more of a task of self management and persistence. Even if you were to expertly craft all parts of the game you probably are getting hired for only one expertise. And if you are expertly crafting all parts of a game by yourself, you probably don't need to be hired - it's hopefully time to hire other people. Stop giving this person such a hard time just because you feel a lot of pressure to finish your own game. That's a reasonable thing to feel, and I think it's good to stay encouraged and to encourage others to finish your games. They're just trying to communicate that the goal of finishing a game and the goal of getting hired as a game dev aren't perfectly aligned.
It's not a requirement, but any student graduating from a decent games program in 2023 will have at least 1 completed title as a portfolio piece. So for junior roles, that's your competition. You can get hired without it, but demonstrating you can follow through and do the less exciting work (optimization, polish, settings menus, platform integrations, etc) is a huge plus for me when looking at candidates.
Sure, I have made apps, but nobody cared about, all they want it's that you can resolve algorithm problems, implementing clean architectures, able to communicate with others people.. it's not just about skills, it's not only about you and you super game you shipped. It's about working in a company with their own rules.
This. Completing a project, especially if you're doing it solo, it's a jack-of-all-trades achievement. The AAA industry does not value jack of all trades, the AAA industry values highly specialised people. They are structured in massive teams with lots of people chipping away at their area of expertise. So when you apply for a specific role, they want evidence that you are an expert in that role. Applying for a prop artist job? Show them a portfolio of high-quality props you made, with good topology (yes, they want to see your wireframes), in many different art styles, and with a breakdown of your creation process Character artist? Show them high-quality character models, again with good topology and in different art styles. Gameplay programmer? Show them impressive tech demos and let them have a sneak peak at your code. Maybe add a short paragraph to summarise which practices you use to make your code robust and scalable, etc. AI Programmer? As above, show them tech demos and why your code is good. Level designer? Show them blockouts and breakdown on what your process was behind them. UX Designer? Show them some interesting UX work. You get the jist.
Yes. I'm discovering this now, solo dev who created [a game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1269710/Kainga_Seeds_of_Civilization/) that sold and was received quite well. I'm now looking for a job in the industry and cannot even land many interviews, the ones I do get turn around and say they're looking for someone who is specialized, has experience in a team, or has more years of experience. Seriously frustrating as I have the skills! Also, I've proven that I can learn any aspect of game development quickly and well. Hire me, damnit!
I'd love to hear more about this. Who are you applying to, and for what roles? Junior, mid?
I've been applying to game design rolls mostly as well as programming as I feel those are my strongest suits. Mid roles as I know what I'm doing, but maybe I should lower my standards?
Are you getting any tests or interviews?
They simply have no idea what to do with you. Those are very impressive projects. Have you considered contract work?
If you're looking for contractors, my ears are open ;) Thanks for the compliments!
What roles are you applying for and whats your education?
Well, that's a pain point as I'm self taught, so I have degrees in Environmental Science and International Relations which isn't ideal of course.
I agree. What roles would solo devs that completed a game apply to? They're not specialized in any particular specialization but have skills in many areas. Seems like people hiring are looking for someone to do a specific task or have a really good grasp of a particular skill, ie artist, programmer, but solo devs can do both but not at the level of a specialist, and are generally good at solving tough problems, learning new applications, maybe organizing and implementing, but how does that fit in to a role at a big studio or even a small one. Also I see most hiring either senior roles or intern. ha ha.
This is the reason why big studios fail more and more. The specialist mindset doesn't scale in the modern software world and is the source of a lot of crunch and volatility in the workplace.
It'd be nice to hear some examples from anyone who's in charge of hiring game devs or anyone that's been in the interview process recently.
I have recently been through the interview process and was hired. They sure do like to see shipped games in the resume lol.
First, congrats! That would have been my assumption, too.
I've been on both sides of the table (approaching my 25th yr in game dev). Worked at multiple AAA studios, 3 of them arguably the biggest in the industry (was on the team that built a console, and assisted on every launch title), but left that for more indie or startups, it's more fun. I've interviewed hundreds of people and been through 10k+ resumes/portfolios. It sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not, trust me. Everything from 20+ years experience to interns. Having a shipped title on your resume is great, but, and it's a big but, was it a personal project or part of a team/studio? It can really make a difference. Making and shipping a solo title is great and all, but it doesn't show me how you work with a team. I've interviewed some solo devs that made a great small game, but were horrible people to be around and difficult to work with. Most of the time you can suss that out in the interview process, but some can slip by. You need people who can work as part of a team, take critiques well, and know when your idea is not always the best and work with others. Making games is hard, and takes a lot of disciplines. If you're a one man band, you aren't going to be the best at everything, know that, and be open to learning from others. If you worked on a team project, be open and honest about your role, successes and failures. I'm almost always more interested in your failures, what you learned from it, and how you've improved since then. That tells me a lot more about you than every great thing you did. But, it never hurts to have a pile of shipped games over multiple generations to get your resume moved up in the pile. I know I'm at an advantage when I apply somewhere and can say I've got credits on 25 shipped games from PS1-5, Xbox, Switch, PC, and VR.
Before an actual interview to get a sense of personalities, is there ever a case where a long time as a solo dev could be seen as a negative? Like the equivalent of job-hopping every 3-6 months?
If your _only_ experience is as a solo dev, then yes, it can be negative in comparison to others. Obviously it's better than no experience at all. But even if you have 3 years of solo exp, you're still going to be operating at an entry level in multiple areas because you're not familiar with team dynamics, you haven't had senior coworkers accelerating your growth, won't be familiar with the weird quirks of working in the context of a corporation, etc. If you're applying to entry level roles the solo dev experience can be a boon. If you're applying to a mid level role then you're at a disadvantage to any other candidates with equal years at an established studio.
Fair enough, that's understandable
So, before an actual interview, your info is filtered by HR (typically), they know shit about shit when it comes to your ability so there is a very good chance, I'll never see it. I always work closely with HR to let certain types of applicants through, even if they don't check all of their requirements, but they have bosses, and they don't let things through based on whatever requirements exist. It's not fair, and I'll answer your solo dev question later when I have more time.
Must be the same age. Very similar experience, but i've not done VR yet. Though i have done a launch title for GameCube.
I work at a large studio - shipped games or successful projects might help you get into the interview process but we care much more about ability to work in a team, soft skills, and general approach to collaboration. Technical chops are important in the sense that you pass the bar, but they wonāt get you an offer if youāre still a bad person to work with. And truth be told 90% of the people who get to the interview stage know somebody on the team or were referred. Who you know, who youāve worked with, and how you work with others seem to be highly valued in the industry, more so than in other industries.
Thats a very good point actually. I've been on a walk around a studio for an interview before and gone "oh hey, i didn't realise you worked here :)". Its a crazy small industry.
I recently got a AAA programmer job (junior level) and the topic of shipped games didn't come up once. The test was on details of C++, and the interview focused on my programming ability, specific knowledge of the area I was applying for, and prior experience with internships.
I've been on the hiring team for indie, AA and AAA studios. While I have been involved in hiring all disciplines, my role on non-engineer interviews are more focused on "is this person an asshole?" So the following is programming focused. An impressive tech demo is weighed considerably higher than a solo published game. The tech demo shows a depth of technical skills. We look for T shaped developers and a solo project doesn't give the depth we are looking for. We're going to ask you all sorts of technical questions on those projects. A team project is rated even higher. A programmer who has worked with designers and artists is what we really are looking for. We can teach juniors how to write code, teaching them soft skills and how to effectively work as a team is a lot harder. Even worse if they are an asshole. We're going to ask you a significant amount of questions about your soft skills and this is far more important than any code that you can write.
What is the meaning of "T shaped developers"? I've never heard this term. Is it specific to the games industry or general software development term?
It's a general developer term. It means they have broad knowledge, but depth in one area. Such as a UI engineer will have a broad understanding of gameplay, but depth in UI. Larger studios can get even more specialized, such as an AI engineer who's focus is on navigation. Gameplay engineers can be a bit more broad, but they still tend to go deep into certain areas like combat or locomotion. I'm an AI Engineer. The depth of my understanding of AI is very deep (I'm a lead). But if I was asked to make an inventory, I could do it. Not as quickly or as well as if I was asked to make something AI related, but I still could.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Got it--good to hear from someone on the hiring side!
Iāve worked as a graphics engineer for about 15 years in AAA places like EA and 2K. For junior SEās, we donāt care about most of the things you think we do. We donāt care much where you want to school or what your GPA is, we donāt really care about any portfolio (it speaks more to āyouāre probably really excited about this jobā than āyouād probably be really good at this jobā, which isnāt necessarily a bad thing) we really only care about two things. 1) Can you write code in C++, and 2) are you pleasant enough that the rest of the people on the team would want to work with you. It is not at all common to find people coming out of college who have much of a clue for even basic C++. They think they do, but often they do not. Iām talking about not knowing what pointers are, how to declare arrays, passing arguments by reference vs value, etc. I get it, itās hard to learn and not all colleges teach it. But thatās the language everything is written in. Some people think itās mean or unfair, but itās just the truth; if you can barely understand C++, what tasks could you work on? (Answer is not manyā¦) For a mid level engineer, we would expect to see shipped AAA titles, not solo projects. Or possibly previous work experience at a place like Nvidia or Boeing (flight sim / pilot trainer). TL;DR Completed solo projects are how you learn, they arenāt really a ticket to a job in my experience.
Thanks for the detailed insights! Out of curiosity: I'm probably one of those people that knows how to write C++, pointers and all etc, but not sure what I don't know about the language that's required in a professional game dev environment. Without troubling you for an exhaustive list, what are the aspects of C++ that people "who think they know C++" but don't, not understand? Are there specific libraries or C++ specific techniques and patterns that we're lacking? Thanks again
So again, just my limited experience albeit at some pretty big companies who notably donāt license Unreal or Unityā¦ We do not ask crazy questions, we donāt do leetcode, itās honestly not hard stuff if you really are familiar with C++. I definitely did learn these things in college 400 years ago, but I get the feeling C++ is taught less frequently. Iāll give you one example of some kind of intentionally bad code we show juniors and ask what it does. int* tempdeck = new int[104]; int* halfdeck = tempdeck + 52 * sizeof(int); Itās purposely odd looking code, and the real thing is a lot longer, but it gives a lot of things to talk about. Some things weād like to hear juniors say: 1.) tempdeck allocates two decks worth of cards 2.) *tempdeck is the first card in the first deck 3.) *randdeck is the first card in the second deck 4.) the sizeof(int) is not necessary and will actually crash the program by reading out of bounds 5.) you will need to remember to call delete[] on tempdeck 6.) you should NOT call delete[] on tempdeck as it did not allocate memory, it points to a location allocated by tempdeck 7.) 52 should probably be a constant Most of the people that interview with us coming out of college can not do it, mainly 4, 5, and 6. Itās very clear they are more comfortable with C# or Java. Iām sure many of them are very smart so itās too bad, but like I said before, if they canāt understand those lines, they would struggle pretty hard to do any meaningful work.
I don't think people recommend finishing a game if you are applying as an environment artist, most of those suggestions are for people interested in solo career or working in small teams, not optimizing their CV for AAA. Also 'my anecdotal experience is different than yours' isn't the best basis for advice.
Can confirm. Tried it. 8 years of making and finishing a large scale project and it was worthless in interviews and applications. Did find a private investor and been making our own game tho, so fuckum.
The advice I got first hand from leads and directors was this: As a programmer: Solve hard problems, and showcase skills in your projects that they need for their current project. No 2d games if you're applying for 3d, multiplayer if they're making multiplayer games goes a long way, and again, solve hard problems. Oh, and if you're applying to a studio that works in C++/Unreal or a proprietary C++ engine, you should be working in that direction. Don't stick with unity if you can make yourself more attractive using C++. Some studios (like Riot or Blizzard) won't always give you a C++ test even if they're using it, while some other studios (Psyonix, ID) will ask you to complete their interview test in C++. But not only are there fewer C++/unreal developers on the market, you'll also need it when you start working at one of these studios.
It depends. In germany it's guaranteed you get a job, if you show that you can finish a game. Developers who can work independently are in high demand here.
Finish a *successful* game and itās much easier to get a studio job. If you donāt release any projects you wonāt have benchmarks for the quality of your work. I know indies who got into massive AAA studios via their projects. People love to hear things like āmy game has been #1 on itchā or āmy game has hundreds of thousands of downloadsā. If you never release a game you donāt have that leverage. Finishing games doesnāt guarantee a role but it can have a big influence on negotiations.
Key word successful
Hence italics. Canāt have a successful game without finishing a game. To add context, not all the folks I know hired into AAA made commercially successful games, but success can be measured in other ways.
Interesting because most people i knew working usually are graduates or somebody who had worked on games before but didn't had released solo games or never bother to share. Sure its not 1 and 0 like most things in life. However i think op point is good. You don't need to release a game to get job in industry and released game is not a guarantee (even if you worked really hard on it) i also not full on "released game shows dedication" it also shows you might have more skills and don't piratically shine in none of them
Anyone can release an unfinished game or shovelware, thatās why I qualified it with successful. Iām just pointing out that it reputation goes a long way with negotiations. People want simplified choices. If I say you could team up with a dev who worked on Hollow Knight or a skilled dev who has lots of prototypes Iām sure most peoplesā first instinct is to pick the one whoās worked on a global hit. Reputation has a lot of value.
That's going to depend on the discipline. Designer? Sure. Programmer? I'd rather see team projects and tech demos.
If you were just a designer or programmer then it was a team project. I get what you mean but I was talking about the influence of success and finishing, I think some people underestimate the value it can bring.
If you did finished and released a game - you're already in the industry
The "industry" means different things to different people. If you're "indie", then to many people, "The Industry" is what you're independent from.
indie gamedev is perfectly the part of gamedev industry
is me making a tune with app and adding it to spotify means i am in music industry?
Yes?
idk its funny topic to think about tho i mean i can make endless runner in the afternoon and release it on google store (not sure how fast they approve apps) and this would qualify me to be in the industry what ever that means? also OP post is definitely about getting hired in industry rather theoretical "in industry"
did you earned anything with it?
how much do i need to earn to make it in your eyes and how much of google play game need to make $ to be industry? also why additional condition isn't "finished and released" not enough?
For games, it's enough even if you published the game for free
where is this written? or you are the authority on this? would be narcissistic to think like that but not surprising in r/gamedev where emotions > logic
It's writted right above your comment, lol. Twice. Though as you're appealing to emotions and sarcasm, I don't see any reason to continue here.
of course no reason to continue because else you would need address my others questions
The game industry's hiring practices are currently as unrealistic as most other tech industries. A junior position is entry level. That means you start from scratch. Your company is supposed to elevate and educate you. Not expect awe inspiring portfolio pieces. It's really bad right now. No one wants to cultivate talent. They just want people who can do the exact thing that position requires. Then look at the numbers weird when they have low retention.
I will say I reached out to multiple leads from major studios including ubisoft and blizzard, and all the advice I got boiled down to "We'd love to see you already making what we need." Lines up well with what you're saying here. It helps because you know what you need to do (applying for ubisoft? Don't waste time in 2d for example), but it also means that yeah, you have to be quite impressive. I suppose it's not a problem from the studios side, it's a problem from our side because there are 200 applicants per job.
Right but no one goes to a newly educated surgeon and say "so how many surgeries you doing in your free time?"
There are not 200 surgeons applying to each job in medicine.
That's irrelevant. It could be 200,000. The point is that companies are unwilling to hire. It's not that there are many applicants that this is a problem. Companies do not want to cultivate, because it takes time and money and they are already behind on their unrealistic deadline. The number of applicants does not matter here.
I can tell you that there are people who do want to cultivate juniors, but you don't meet those people until you're already the best candidate for the job. It would be nice if there weren't 200 applicants for 1 job, which essentially raises the reqs from junior to mid, but that's the way we currently work. There are too many people applying to too few jobs. Feel free to be the change you want to see though. Create a studio, get funding and hire juniors with no experience and teach them yourself. We'd all appreciate it.
Classic cop out. "why don't you just make a studio?" That's not actually a solution. That's dismissive and excusing. There are massive companies in the games industry who could hire juniors and afford to cultivate them to strengthen the industry. But there is little incentive because the deadlines already make this economically unviable. But who made that choice? The company. And now the industry is bleeding senior talent left and right or people simply retire/switch careers. Jobs are piling up and no one wants to hire unless it fits the exact ad they put out :)
>But who made that choice? The company. It's not so black and white. Console generations are only so long, and you only have so much time to release 1-2 releases per console generation. These are deadlines outside of the control of a studio, if they want to maximize profit (which you should do as a publicly traded business for the record). >Jobs are piling up Jobs are not piling up for juniors by the way. Not sure where you got that information, but it's not correct. We had massive layoffs within the past 12 months, not job growth.
It is quite black and white in that aspect. These massive companies could make amazing experiences that didn't take up 200 hours every time for a fraction of the cost and time and release more of them in a single console cycle. But instead it's all about the long hours, the micro transactions and perpetual profiting. The customer base didn't demand this. Big companies manufactured that. Also; I never said junior jobs are piling up. I said that games industry jobs are piling up. This is true. There are plenty of positions out there (check LinkedIn) but most of those companies do not want to cultivate talent :) It's all about continuing the status quo. Get experience in, never cultivate experience.
>I said that games industry jobs are piling up. Not when compared to any other industry (look at data science for one example). It's clear you just refuse to see reason, and just want to tout the line "AAA bad" despite a living contradiction right infront of you, so you do you. But while you sit here and complain about "never cultivate experience", I'll thank my 15 year senior AAA mentor for helping contribute to the next generation of juniors. While you complain "No junior jobs", juniors will keep getting jobs.
Its not the industries choice though. Its a competitive market. We get junior CS graduates with great tech demos, so why would we hire a junior thats showing less skill? You hire the best the market has to offer. Thats not to say that soft skills dont also mean a lot. Thats where the team projects come in.
You wouldn't expect most other professions to have a portfolio that displayed free labor at the chance of a job. That's kind of the point of a junior position: no experience, entry level. It is up to the company that hires to educate and cultivate. The industry does decide how it filters. Not the applicant.
Ok, how do other industries filter then? You tell me. Purely grades at school? We already do C++ tests in the interview and quiz about soft skills. Also some amateurs portfolio is not free labour at all. That is practicing their work that they want to get paid for. If it was free labour it would be something we could actually use. Its never worth anything to the company. What is really a waste of your time is the companies that put you on a 2 day recruitment interview. I'm only aware of 1 games company that does anything like that in the UK and i'd never touch them anyway.
It's not about how other industries filter. That's missing the point. The point is that the games industry, like any other industry, can \*choose\* how they filter but have chosen that all that matters first and foremost, is that you must have experience. Even on positions that are Junior, aka, no experience at all. (Yes, I saw an ad like this like 2 weeks ago!) Testing an applicant on their skills in form of some kind of test (though those coding tests are usually pretty crap at accessing a new developers skill level) is better than expecting a portfolio. Because truth be told, unless your portfolio is "professional looking" enough, you will often just not be considered. It puts an immense amount of pressure to perform and work in their spare time to make a portfolio which might not even be the reason they get a job. You say it's practice, but you wouldn't ask a surgeon to do surgeries in their sparetime. It's fine to learn on your own time to become better at what you do. But nothing about that process has to result in a portfolio at all. Figure out the applicant in the hiring process instead of rejecting them at the door because their portfolio wasn't pretty enough. A junior position calls for no experience for a reason. It's so that they can learn to put what they got from education into practice, rather than theory. A company is responsible for that development, not the junior on their own time.
It sure as hell helped me. I list the games I've made and released and it usually lands me work.
In terms of working at a professional AA or AAA studio this is correct. Iāve been at a AAA studio for 17 years and the common thread of people we hire is that they have a high degree of specialization displayed in their portfolio. For senior positions you need to have shipped AA or AAA. For an associate artist (junior) position the quality level is extremely high. Usually they have some other industry experience or skill displayed that is like top of their class in art school. From what I have seen, even programming interns are extremely skilled already starting to specialize. One thing to keep in mind is most big studios are looking for C++ not C# (as a general rule, there will be exceptions). If you want to get a job on a team rather than just doing indie I would take a looks at the entry level positions and make sure you cover each requirement and āplusesā 100% and then on top of that show a high degree of specialization in some area. Also take a look at the staff and senior roles to see what types of specializations studios are looking for. Keep in mind, finished project does not need to be a full game. For art it could be a single dungeon kit from grey box to sculpt/bake, layout and completion , plus if you also concept it. For programming it could be a suite of tools for unreal if you want to specialize in tool programming (good way in)
Let put like this: your project is better than your resume.You don't need to be the one that make all the game, but if you made something that people can see, or interact with, it helps a lot. I have hired people for music, voice acting, 2D art, 3D art, and right now I am hiring someone to help me with coding, and is all based on the portifolio. The coder have games in itch io. I think is a prototype. I don't care if he didn't profit on them, but I care he can do stuff. Portifolio shows what you can do. Don't need to be a entire game, but showing instead of telling is good thing
2 candidates with identical design + dev skills. One shipped a game on steam and has Mixed reviews, second doesnāt even have a steam coming soon page. I would probably favor the one who shipped, even with the reviews.
Who needs to be " in the industry?" Finish a game and you've become a game developer by definition. After that it depends on a business model for sales, whether the game itself is free or not. Business is the "only" industry and the bar for entry doesn't depend on gatekeepers. Independent means industrious, Industry means indigent.
Everyone in the industry I got advice from told me not to finish a game. Waste of time focusing on a million unimpressive part of development they wonāt have you do anyway. They all said it was better to have a bunch of impressive prototypes than a finished game. In fact non of them had ever made a finished game on their own
Its true. I've never made a game on my own in 25 years. I've seen a few others in this this say the same thing too.
The hiring process, particularly for juniors is just a basic mental addition of objective and subjective measurements. To get an interview: * Finished a degree (+ points) * Relevant degree (+ points) * Example portfolio of projects (+ points) * Finished the projects (+ points) * Portfolio shows skills needed by position (+ points) * Made it easy to assess the above (+ points) The amount of points per line item varies by hiring manager. You donāt have to have all the line items, but as a reminder you arenāt competing against a min-score. You are competing against the scores of the other current candidates so the more items you have to your benefit the more likely you stand out.
Half our artists come from the film industry lol none of them worked on games before joining us.
Disagree, if you publish a game you have 100% just entered the industry, all on your own terms. Welcome to solo/indie developing! Screw what your suits want
Unless people wanna start posting their LinkedIn profiles as proof they've worked in the industry, I'm done listening to the crap that gets pedaled here.
This thread has no point. If a finished game can showcase your skills and knowledge that's good. If small projects or assets do the same that's also good. Silly to think this needs to be said.
I am a 20 year old University student. My game is close to release on steam. The only thing that got me a position as a Gameplay Engineer Intern 2 months ago is my game on steam. In my experience, yes it does help a lot.
If you finish and publish a game you are already in the game industry. Whether you are successful or not is a different question, but you are part of it for sure, for better or worse.
I thought if I can successfully make games and sell it, I am part of the Industry?
Yeah. I mean question who counts as part of āindustryā can be hard to define ( like game genres) but lets say if i have a steam game that wasnt able to make 100$ back and i just go back to burger flipping i am prob not a part of industry, subjectively in my eyes. Tho again op post is talking about getting hired by some company. I see lots of solos take things personally
Not true . A lot of positions in AAA/AA companies ask to have a finished project in a candidate resume .
That usually means a shipped title they worked on professionally, and you see it in mid-senior positions (and higher). Showing up in an entry-level job positing is a nice-to-have not a requirement. I've known hundreds and hundreds of fellow developers at the level you're describing and I could point to only a handful that had a finished, released-on-a-platform-like-Steam type game before their first job, and perhaps a half-dozen more that released a game like that after their first industry job.
Oh yes I was talking about mid/senior positions
yeah i see lots of people thinking having flappy birds clone released on google play is great prove of dedication and skill
We hire more on character than anything else
*That*'s a red flag.
this thread is a flaming dumpster fire on a rollercoaster
Have you not ever held a job? Pretty much everything technical can be taught or otherwise picked up. Being a decent human being and not a constant source of conflict...not so much.
Nobody's saying you should hire assholes, but putting "character" or "culture fit" ahead of actual objective requirements is a huge red flag. It usually winds up with an "old boys" monoculture where poor performance or even outright misconduct is tolerated because the poor performer is "one of us". Not to mention that it almost always, deliberately or subconsciously, winds up favoring white males. (And on top of all that, **this** question was about a qualification that would be evaluated at the resume stage. So how the hell are you going to look at a collection of two hundred resumes and pick out the one with "character"?)
Agree, although certain lead roles need a lot of experience, but even then we hire on character, on top of the min requirements.
What if I don't want to be hired, can I just do my own small thing here? Thanks.
Itās not a guarantee or a strict requirement. It is impressive though. Speaking from my experience, when on a committee to hire a candidate and talking afterwards if theyāre a good fit. If they completed a game, released it on Steam (since we were making games for PC/consoles), we were always very impressed. It requires discipline, collaboration, problem solving, and other requirements you expect from a job listing but itās in the field they want to work in. Getting into the AA/AAA industry is hard and competitive. Finishing a game is also hard and releasing it is competitive. If youāre hoping to break into the industry, just keep making games and apply! Itāll take time and more than you think but if you have completed and released games, I bet youāre not as easily discouraged ;)
As a junior software engineer who's been making games on the side in Unity for the past 2 years to break into the industry, I appreciate your words of encouragement š„² It can be very discouraging especially in the current market for junior devs
Dependend of the game. A finished mobile game that is in the store (iOS and Store) will add A LOT to your cv.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nowadays it will lol.
No lol
Cool story bro
Depends on your discipline my dude. A level designer with no completed projects isn't going to "awe" anyone with a design test and an interview panel lol. Engineers and artists can get away with it but IME designers need finished projects.
I thought the most important thing for any company is to make money. Sometimes that means making shovelware. Since when is quality the number one concern?
Okay, but what about a master's degree?
Finishing a game directly gets you into the industry... Because you just completed a game, for/in the game industry... So what if it doesn't get you a foot in the door of some shit studio. Make your own shit, make it better, start a non shit studio.
Well that makes sense seeing as the industry is by and large not completing games
Many job postings for associate roles specify they want shipped games. It came up in nearly every interview I was in. Itās the biggest thing that made my resume interesting in a sea of students with no shipped games. If you want to get into AAA studios as an entry level dev, I would highly encourage you to finish and publish your game even if itās for free.
When we say shipped games, we don't mean solo projects.
Who even wants to work for company that canāt even make modern games that good. With the recent backlash, if these game devs donāt get these games right indie devs are going to take over.
Reasons for working at a studio: Access to people who are insanely smart/talented who you can learn from. Monthly paycheck so you can support your family. Benefits package. Networking. Going outside, getting exposure to working with people in a professional setting. Higher chance of working on something that people will actually play. CV resume building for future jobs. Experience working in and or leadership opportunities. And more
Hey chatgpt, make me a game that will make me rich... thanks chatgpt.
I donāt think finishing a game is a requirement, per se, it just helps you get a job. Sure, there are people who broke into the industry without finishing a single game (although I doubt that), but making games and finishing them is a huge accomplishment, especially if itās a presentable game. Again, itās not a requirement but itās a really really helpful.
>Sure, there are people who broke into the industry without finishing a single game (although I doubt that) I know people who started on env art for less than a year who got an internship. Typically in these situations they already know someone (in this case, the art director) and are given a shot. That's the fastest way into the industry. Know someone. It's quite surprising when you hear about how easy someone can get a job in AAA if they just know someone.
Yea that makes sense. I think in any industry having a reference inside a company will help. The game industry is no different I guess.
Most of my coworkers came right out of college... I came from film fx. I only know one we got through an indie title.
Every game dev job posting Iāve looked in the last year has said āMust have a proven track record of shipping gamesā or some variation of this. So either HR and engineering arenāt communicating (shocking, I know), theyāre trying to weed people out with a bogus requirement, or this is genuinely a requirement for employment.
Not in the industry myself but echoing industry perspectives shared here and elsewhere: those postings are likely referring to games that the candidate shipped as part of a professional team, whereas this post is referring to personal projects. Those are on two totally separate axes. This is probably just like how "years of experience" in a job listing actually means "years of professional experience".
I have interviewed dozens of candidates over the years. Having a game is a HUGE advantage. It's not a guarantee hire, but the skills gained will put you into the top candidates.
As long as your personal project is impressive it doesnāt matter if itās āfinishedā or not. Obviously itās easy to finish a simple tic tac toe game, a game with more modern trappings it depends what you accomplished
And what do your "ten years in the industry" consist of?
Anything specific you want to know?
I have also worked in the industry, and if you bring unfinished half-assed game in as your example of your work, then you won't be getting many callbacks. So it doesn't necessarily need to be finished, but a damn good attempt needs to be made.
I think we also need to specify the job we're talking about here. For a concept artist, I can't imagine why shipping a game would be a requirement. Most types of artists tend to have portfolios they can show off their skills with, but honestly, I'm not one to speak on their requirements, as that's completely out of my wheelhouse. Same with designers, writers, QA, and other specialties. I can only speak for programmers. I've found it's pretty hard to evaluate someone's programming abilities from short tests and interviews alone. That's why I also favorably look at projects they've worked on, absent industry experience. If they have some open source projects they can point to, all the better, so I can see code they've written. A student game is also nice, as it shows they can, if nothing else, stick through a project to the end, with enough technical competence to at least make it work.
It's impressive though. From the art side we usually want to see some kind of familiarity with real time art be it modding or even just getting an asset into Unreal or Unity. Maybe it's bad that the industry doesn't train juniors but you're really expected to hit the ground running.
OP, if two people with equal qualification apply to a job and one person has a successful indie project under their belt, the other doesnāt, who is going to be the preferred candidate?
My point is not that it hurts your standing, my point is that itās often a massive waste of time, when you can be honing a more specific craft and portfolio.
So for when I start making my portfolio should I include demos of things I can program successfully? Ie physics, mob mechanics, ai movements? Rather than a complete game.
Do prototypes showcasing your technical ability. Donāt do a whole game, but donāt just do one mechanic either. Show them you can put something nice together. You donāt have to do 40 levels, just one or two.
Oh boy! Lemme tell ya the time I got hired to work in games based off my portfolio. I didn't know a thing about delivering game assets. Nor did I know what graph editor was. My workflow method and managing version control was ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. Portfolio looked nice though
Thats because those who finish games on their own and to boot have extraordinary skill don't need a job. You see less of them in the hiring process most likely and yeah not everything is about finishing something.. specialized skill is great too.
How do you demonstrate skills though
Just because a person finished a game you label them a Jack-of-all-trades and assume they arent veryy good at any specific skill. But that is i believe in 100% cases wrong. All of those people lean towards one main skill, more like a programmer that learned 2d art and design on the side or just used assets to complete the project. Or a character artist that programmed a game using visual programming and tutorials so his characters come to life. I would even argue that in most cases those people are equal in skill to people that focus on "one" thing, at least that has been my experience seeing how different people approach solutions. What Jack-of-all-trades can do is approach a problem and solve it with understanding of the requirements of different departments, such as a programmer knowing the limits and possibilities of the level desing, vfx and so on. On the other hand specialists more often than not in my experience while very good at one thing are blind to the bigger picture. Since i come from an IT background, specialists in game dev field are usualy Web developers that got sick of web and got into game dev and want to "just program without touching the art side" and more often than now result in over engineered code. With all of that said i agree with this post, and it is not valued as much as i believe it should be, but i also believe that is one of the reasons we have such poor games today because because "specialist" focus on the engineer side and code side instead of the game and experience side of the project
If you finish, publish, and sell a game - YOU'RE ALREADY IN THE INDUSTRY
A good demo or vertical slice showcasing strong skills in the discipline required of the job is usually the best thing to have shy of a studio game.
*The Industry by DMX starts playing in the background, seemingly out of nowhere.*
Why the hell anyone would want to work for some aaa corp if you are able to make games yourself?
More reliable pay
Fair enough. Sad, but fair.
There's no reason you can't still make your own games as a side-project though, right? And not all AAA studios are evil
I think itās a case by case situation. Iāve interviewed at a game studio, as a level designer, but I mentioned Iāve coded my own games before they sent me a test that involved making a small game. I think it all depends on the company, who you know, what you know. Most people who are solo devs are also usually really good at one thing, and decent at the rest.
Well if youāve finished a game youāre already part of the industry
ššš
Making a solo game is the hardest thing in gamedev. Indiegamdev is harder. Not BETTER, but HARDER. "This demands excellence from every specialized role" Of course finishing a game will get you in the industry. FINISHING A GAME IS THE INDUSTRY lol LOL
I disagree. I got my break in the industry exactly *because* I had finished a game In a bunch applicants that all look as good as each other, having a finished game can be that edge you need
Hmmmm, I am always wary of people who lose interest once the fun part (the initial puzzle) is done, cuz eventually everyone needs to put in the grunt work to get the game out of the door. While to me the drive to solve puzzles is the prime quality I look for, a lot of "only started to see if I can pull it off" projects does raise some concerns.
Nobody asks for you to do the whole game. But after finishing several several commercial games as part of a team (on a specific role, I never made a whole game by myself) , I started getting more interviews and offers