GDC 2012:  Art Director / Lead Artist Roundtable

3-Day Summary | March 7-9, 2012

Problem Topic:  Scope Creep

• Mini-milestones. 
• Weekly Reviews. 
• Milestone Bucket. 
• Prioritized Backlog. 
• Sprints.

The next question posed:  What is the greatest contributor on your projects to scope creep?

• Increasing Complexity. 
• Shifting Priorities. 
• Story Development. 
• Competing Art Direction. 
• Creative Director. 
• Buffers.

The next question posed:  What strategies have your studios employed to address scope creep?

• “Baby Kills.”    
• Broad vs. Specific. 
• Strike teams/Scrum/P.O. 
• Find Allies. 
• Pick Your Battles.  Priorities.
• Change Date. 
• Communicating Consistent Vision. 
• Overscope Early. 
• Broadcast for Ideas & Actively Cull. 
• Know Team Strengths. 

The next question posed:  Is scope /feature creep always a bad thing?

• Feature Creep Can Be Good. 
• Art Leads Manage Process for Change. 
• Tools Impact Viability. 

Problem Topic:  Creating Effective Art Critique

• Meetings. 
• Dailies. 
• Artist-driven vs. Director-driven. 
• Peer critique first. 
• Animation – block out, checkpoints, asset viewer, game approval. 
• Get it in Game. 
• Group Meetings > Emails. 
• Space Planning for Interaction. 
• Let it sit; Use time. 
• Remote Development -> Skype, Vid Conf ; Face-to-face > email. 
• No Meeting days; Preserve time. 
• Impacted by Team Seniority. 
• Time for playing the game

Peer Critique:  The next topic that was discussed was how peer critique was leveraged in different studios.

• 360 Feedback. 
• Adaptable / Flexible. 
• Safe but hierarchy for decisions. 
• Start with technical checklist and then teach aesthetics. 
• Break the production pace. 
• Too rigid a schedule for reviews. 
• Show WIP. 
• Allow for iteration time. 
• Different structures 
• Different teams critique. 

The last component of the critique discussion focused on:  Taking Non-artist Feedback. 

• Reframing / Understanding Comments. 
• “Lunch & Learn.” 
• Encourage whole team to participate. 
• Providing context. 
• Teaching visions and values. 
• Clarity of Design. 

The struggle between leadership and delegation.

• Student projects – lack of authority
• Programmer / Tools feedback – usability from staff and priorities from leads
• What type of leadership training is offered.

o   targeted mentorship

o   one-on-one interactions.

• Structure of leadership training, identifying the right people. 

o   best artists frequently do NOT make the best leaders. 

o    “theater analogy” director != artist

  How the attendees’ studios identified leadership potential

• The first quality voiced was sociability. 
• Consistency over time. 
• Response to critique
• Willing to let go of content creation
• Can share the vision
• Caretakers for the careers of others
• Maintain credibility with their team:

o   Regular interaction with the team

o   Focus on the culture

o   Commonalities

• Sharing the vision while adhering to the stylistic goal?

o   "Stubborn in vision, and flexible in details.”

o   Clearly establish the guiding principles

o   The right team to accomplish the goal

o   “Letting Go.” 

• Can learn from past mistakes,.

o   solicit input/feedback from the team

• Break the routine

o   events over lunch

o   after hours sessions

Career Development for Art Teams:

• Art Lead - reliance for input
• career development regularly (from content to leadership).
• Path to Senior Artist?

o   always respond with “Why?” 

o   talk about why they want to be a senior artist

• Principal Artist. 

o   Most difficult problems

o   Sets the standards, in both process and quality

o   Frontline of problem identification and risk mitigation.

• Senior Artist

o   Expanding influence

o   Mentorship. 

• Lead Artist

o   Management and Organizational Ability

o   Communication Ability

• Focus on those who ask for responsibility (not title)
  

What do you do when an employee asks for more money? 

• Send them to HR. 
• Discuss experience and level of contribution
• Kick-off a conversation around opportunities
• Number of projects shipped” as a contributing factor?
• Entry level (associate position), little relevant experience.
• Impact the individual has on the team

What was most important attribute in the next employer:

• Values of the studio
• Work / Life Balance
• Defining Individual Growth beyond work
• Size of company
• Opportunity to build the art culture
• Presence of Veterans (implied stability and satisfaction)
• Opportunities to network, learn from others
• Life drawing, Sketchcrawl
• MONEY WAS NOT MENTIONED

How (Not) to Phone Interview

Over the past 5 years, I've had many opportunities to phone screen potential art candidates for a variety of projects.  Phone interviews are very important in this industry, as it is the first exposure both parties have to one another.  It's important to make a good (and honest) impression in that first conversation.

Thankfully, most phone interviews go well.  Most candidates are pleasant and are capable of holding a conversation.  I know there are lots of similar articles to read on this topic, but I continue to be surprised by the number of candidates who flame out on a couple of seemingly obvious pointers.  In the interest of educating others, here they are:


1.  Be enthusiastic.

This one is pretty simple.  If you're willing to commit yourself to working for an employer, you should at least be excited to speak with people who work there.  And if you're not excited, why did you bother applying?  Most candidates do not come off as apathetic, but periodically a phone screen will suggest the candidate is neutral.  Sometimes, the person being interviewed sounds like they just rolled out of bed -- monotone and monosyllabic responses.

I suspect that some of this may stem from formality expectations in phone interviews, which don't really play out to this industry.  It's the equivalent of wearing a suit to the onsite interview.  It makes the interviewer question whether or not the candidate understands the industry or the company.
Of course, it's possible to go too far in the other direction.  Believe it or not, but there is such a thing as "too excited" and that can put be equally off-putting.

2. Know the company.  Know the games.

I remain shocked at how frequently this happens.  Less frequently at Blizzard than at Volition, but it still happens (believe it or not).  If you get to the point that you are asked to interview over the phone with members of the team, take some time and prepare for the interview.  Do some light research.  Find out about their projects and where the studio is located.

I was shocked how many phone-screening candidates commented how much they wanted to work for Volition and would love to live in Chicago.  Chicago?  After a couple of years, my standard response would be, "Yeah, Chicago is great, but that 3-hour commute to our office is gonna be a pain in the ass."  It would take the candidate a few seconds to catch on, but was extremely cathartic for me.

*  Before you ask, yes, I did indeed see a cover letter addressed to "Violation."  I assumed this was a typo.  It gives me nightmares to think that someone might have actually sent me an application for violation. *shudder*

The issue of knowing the games has diminished between Volition and Blizzard.  I would periodically encounter Volition applicants who were unfamiliar with the Red Faction or Saints Row franchises.  I found it mildly disconcerting, but would often segue that revelation into questioning why the person wanted to work for Volition if they hadn't experienced the products first hand.

Nevertheless, there have been a small handful of Blizzard applicants who have similar "shortcomings" in the research department.  Believe it or not, I actually had a candidate tell me that he was a "huge gamer" and that he "loved Blizzard's art style."  However, when pressed for experience, the candidate admitted to never having played any Blizzard games.  Any.  I'm sure my making such comments only add to the perception that you have to play every Blizzard game to work for Blizzard  -- which isn't true.  To the contrary, we hire people who don't categorize themselves as "gamers" in the traditional sense.  However, if you're going to proclaim yourself a gamer, who loves the art style of the company on the other end of the line -- you really should have played at least ONE of the company's games.  Just a thought.



3. Be available.  Control your environment.

This is more of a logistics and professionalism issue.  It should come as no surprise that when a company schedules a phone call with you, you should be ready.  Although rare, it's disconcerting when a candidate fails to answer the call, or answers it from an unexpected place.

Sometimes people have to use discretion when answering an interview call.  If they already work some place, it's understandable if they have to sequester themselves in an office or answer a call from the parking lot or their car.  I'm not talking about that.

What I am talking about is the handful of candidates who have answered the call in odd and what-should-not-come-as-unexpected environments.  I've had candidates answer their cell while driving on the freeway (may be forgivable), from inside a subway terminal (what?) and in an airport terminal with the flu (why?).

My recommendation is this:  Control your environment.  If you're genuinely interested in speaking with a company about a position for yourself, ensure that you can give the people on the other end of the line your full attention.  Ensure that you are at a location where you can clearly hear the other party, and are free from unreasonable distraction (I don't care if you're at home and your dog barks; that's fine.)


4. Answer honestly

I'm going to end this post on a philosophical note.  Phone interviews will periodically contain "gotcha" questions.  The obvious one is, "Please describe your ideal role..." or some variation thereof.  With rare exception, the candidate will usually just describe the job for which they are interviewing, sometimes parroting back the job description text itself.  This is rarely the best answer, and oftentimes highlights how certain the degree of self-awareness the candidate possesses.  For those who truly see the position as their ideal job, (referring back to point #1) the energy and enthusiasm of their response is the key indicator.  Lacking that energy/enthusiasm, it has the potential to come across as insincere or disinterested.

All candidates should endeavor to answer each question as honestly as they reasonably can.  Sometimes, this can be more difficult than it sounds.  So, let me put it to you this way.  If you obtain a position at a company, any company, by answering questions in a way that isn't completely honest with yourself, how happy do you think you'll be in that job?  How long do you think it will be before your employer detects your unhappiness?

Even if your ideal role isn't the position for which you are interviewing, say so.  The interviewer will appreciate your candid responses.  Also, you may have also demonstrated a level of self-awareness that will impress the company and lead to a better position in the future.  Never forget that this is an industry of interconnectedness, and that your contacts today will lead you to your jobs in the future. 

Honestly.

GDC: What it takes.

Less than an hour left to go to hit my monthly quota.  Speed blogging, here I come:

A few weeks ago, a coworker expressed to me how hard he thought it must be to speak at the Game Developers' Conference.  He felt like he would never be up to that challenge -- that public speaking in that setting would be too difficult.
I understand how he feels, and recognize that this is likely a consistent assumption across our industry.  Candidly, I felt the same way until after I had spoken.  Okay, I felt that way until after I had spoken THREE times.  In reality, putting together a successful talk at GDC is quite easy.  It relies on only a handful of qualifications.

1.  Inform / Inspire

This is the big one.  You don't have to carry the greatest revelation or motivate industry-wide change -- but you should be able to get across a simple idea.  Even if you can't change minds, you stand a good chance of changing thought processes -- or changing conclusions.  If nothing else, the transfer of knowledge alone will do most of the heavy lifting for you.

2.  Entertain

A day of presentations can be pretty exhausting.  People get restless, especially as the week wears on.  Also, we make entertainment products for a living.  Making an entertaining presentation should be easy -- all you have to do is reflect the passion for what we do in what you say.

By the way, the products we make have a visual component.  Leave the all-text PowerPoint deck at home.  Please don't give me a book to read while I'm listening to you speak.

3.  Connect and Energize

Lastly, try to understand your audience.  Try to help your audience understand you, even if it's only talking about what you do and why you do it.  The best way to accomplish this is to ensure that it's you who is speaking.  Too many people strive to come off as overly formal or unnecessarily polished.  Don't practice your presentation too much -- be unpolished.  Laugh.  Which leads to the last point -- but which I feel is often the most important for me and which directly impacts all of the others.

4. Have Fun

If you don't, who will?

Like I said, speaking at GDC is easy.  Getting a presentation accepted?  Hmmm.  Well, that's a different story....

PS - Yes, I see that I created this post without pictures.  Shut up.  I'll do that later.  You know:  Fix it in polish.

Feedback: Take it.

 

Disclaimer:  I took this picture of my daughter after she lost her first tooth.  It's supposed to be funny.  No, really.

I've been musing over how people respond to feedback, both positive and negative. I've read books and attended classes on how best to deliver both types.   I've done some research.  What has really surprised me is how little information is out there on how to take feedback.

Especially negative feedback, which is frequently the most critical to individual growth.  Candidly, I've received more than my fair share of this as well.  As a primer, here's how NOT to respond to critical feedback.  And, yes, I've unfortunately done some of this as well.  So, take it from someone who learned the hard way.  Or, more to the point, just take it.

1.  Don't clam up.

Believe me when I say that most reasonable managers/leaders put a lot of thought into how to deliver negative feedback -- or to use the more common parlance, "critical feedback."  When the conversation happens, the person talking to you wants to interact with you.  If someone refuses to respond, it's common for the other person to assume a lack of respect or an unwillingness to listen.  Talk.

2.  Don't argue.

Sometimes the feedback isn't going to be perfectly accurate (from your perspective).  Try to remember that the person delivering the feedback is presenting what he or she feels is a reasonable assessment.  The feedback stands even if it is not accurate.  This may sound crazy, but try to remember that, as a professional, you are responsible for managing the perception of both yourself and your work.  Rather than argue over the feedback, how about discussing intent?  How about working with your manager or lead on how best to present yourself or your work?

3.  Don't be dismissive.

Believe it or not, some people dismiss feedback when it happens.  They will manufacture any number of reasons why the sources of the feedback or the content itself shouldn't be listened to or how the feedback doesn't apply to them.  This is about the worst thing you could do when receiving feedback.  Doing so, you create the perception that you cannot and will not change either your work or your behavior.  Here's the shorthand version:  the next step involves HR.

4.  Don't go political.

Anyone remember that kid in school who used to brag about getting in trouble with the teacher?  Yeah, he or she is in the workplace now -- and his/her behavior hasn't changed that much.  While cathartic, this is ultimately unproductive.  I'm not saying you shouldn't vent, but be mindful that venting to colleagues doesn't resolve the feedback.  Also, remember that your peers are not the same as your lead.  Your peers aren't going to give you the same honest feedback.  And if you rank your peers' feedback while ignoring your lead's, then you may risk a slow and shallow career trajectory.

What to do:  Take it.

Everyone receives critical feedback over the course of his or her career.  It's to be expected.  It's what you do with the feedback that measures the type of person and employee you are.  When you do happen to be on the receiving end of some critical feedback, here is a short list of respectful responses:

• Ask questions.  Good, productive questions
• Suggest alternative practices or behaviors
• Ask for feedback again in the future.

All good managers and leaders understand that feedback is part of a productive relationship.  That doesn't mean that there aren't bad managers and leaders out there as well.  However, unless you've taken the steps to be receptive to feedback, you're not in a position to judge the person delivering the feedback in the first place.

A Sandal-Trough Scenario

Those who have worked with me for any length of time, know that I'm prone to drawing analogies.  Usually bad ones.  Few are worth mentioning and most aren't worth repeating.  This is the exception.

I'd like to see the Sandal-Trough Scenario term reach widespread use.  In short, it refers to a sequence of two (or more) unrelated, largely neutral events which yield an undesirable (or perhaps horrifying) consequence.  Anyone who has found themselves in a leadership position for any reasonable length of time has undoubtedly encountered a Sandal-Trough Scenario.  Let me explain the terminology, then:

Sandal - Predominantly open-toe footwear that is easily slipped on or removed.  Most commonly worn in spring/summer months (or year round in warmer climates).  All the pleasantries of going barefoot, but more acceptable in public spaces (also, more all-terrain - obviously).

Trough - In this case, a urinal trough.  For those readers unfamiliar with the urinal trough, it's a design which wholly replaces the single-user urinal in men's bathrooms.  The urinal trough is most commonly found in large sporting arenas or venues.  It is both odious and odorous.  It is also a perfectly reasonable design given the contributing factors:

• a huge volume of male customers
• space efficient relative to single-user alternative (cram in there, buddy!)
• voluminous consumption of beverages which both a.) significantly increase urinary waste production and b.) significantly decrease disposal "accuracy."

However, few can reject the potential for unsanitary horror that can result at the intersection of sandals and urinary troughs.  Therefore, I give you the Sandal-Trough Scenario, two perfectly reasonable and unrelated decisions whose combination yield an unwelcome (and potentially messy) result.

Feel free to use this terminology in your next meeting, team presentation and/or Sunday brunch.

* I'm perfectly aware that there are probably half a dozen other terms used to describe this scenario.  Mine just happens to be, at best, more relatable and, at worst, a more graphic and memorable depiction.

Do YOU know why?

Before reading any further, watch this video.  It’s roughly fifteen minutes, and worth every second.  I’ll wait.

 

Rob Pardo shared this video at a recent team event at Blizzard.  Like many TED videos, I really enjoyed this presentation, and it struck me as highly relevant to the gaming industry.

At a number of studios and across a variety of projects, I’ve repeatedly heard the question, “What are we making?”  In fact, I’ve asked the question a fair number of times myself.  After watching Mr. Sinek’s presentation, I am struck at how much more engaging a question “Why?” is over “What?”.

I am confident that most development studios know what they are making – even when most of us are flailing our arms trying to figure it out.  I am significantly less confident that most studios (publishers and developers alike) know why they make their games.  As Mr. Sinek says, “to make money” is an insufficient answer.  For us, the money is the “connecting point” that permits the end of one cycle to connect to the next, thereby allowing the employees to continue to do what they love (whether it be game development or accounting).

Beyond the products we make (collective “we”), answering the why question in our industry requires a serious level of introspection.  Having watched this video, I find myself convinced that the success of our top studios, and by association their products, is hinged on the organization’s ability to understand why.  They can appreciate the composition of their teams, their values and their unique identity.  As a result, they select the types of products that best leverage their talent, their experience, their unique identity and their limitations.

Here is a starter list of questions that I quickly assembled:

• What does your team value?  And don’t give vague platitudes like “commitment” or “passion.”  What does your team truly value?  Technical expertise?  Quick-and-dirty rapid prototyping?  Artistic vision?  Actually, you don’t have to answer this, just look at your staff (their talents, their expertise).  The problem is solved bottom-up.
• Who do you hire?  Largely, this answers the same question as the first.  However, you need to make sure that why you’re doing (top-down) matches the previous question’s (bottom-up).
• How do you make your games?  Process-driven?  Agile and experimental?
• Very Important:  What games have you made already?  Regardless of the financial and/or critical success, games are developed for a reason.  Why?  Why did you make that game?  The financial results will undoubtedly impact the next game you make, but should that be the prime deciding factor?  If it is, then aren’t we saying our why is “to make money”?
• Why are you there?  Are you there for the project?  Projects end.  Or are you there for the organization?  What does the organization represent to you?  That alone is a pretty big why.

These are all interesting and important questions.  Candidly, I feel that being able to clearly answer them will give you far stronger forecasting ability than any form of “market research” or “end user analysis.”  There will always be plenty of data that encourages studios to make Game A or Game B.  All I’m suggesting is that the most significant data point comes from within the organization, not without.

Don’t tell me what your next game will be.   

Tell me about why you’re next game will be.

Art & "Leadership?"

I titled this blog, “Art & Leadership” because I’ve frequently felt that my own career has left me with one foot firmly planted in both disciplines.  Those who know me would probably say it should be “Management” rather than “Leadership.”  I chose leadership for purely selfish reasons:  it sounds better, reads better and surprisingly few know the difference.

In my opinion, effective development teams are composed of both strong leaders and strong managers.  Neither should be subordinate to the other, assuming comparable levels of skill and experience.  Good project direction requires strong individuals in both categories.  And good development studios recognize the difference and staff both with the best people.

Unfortunately, the two disciplines do sometimes become confused, encounter conflicting priorities and have to work through the resulting friction.  That’s okay.  Truthfully, both management and leadership require similar skills and talents:

• Great communication skills 
• The ability to proactively assess and prioritize opportunities
• Stay focused on the “big picture.” 

They differ in a single dominant category:

• Leadership is focused on the product.  It looks outward.  It is the what.
• Management is focused on the team.  It looks inward.  It is the how.

Leaders (regardless of where they fall on the management/leadership spectrum) who focus exclusively in one area to the exclusion of the other are doomed to, at best, middling success if not outright failure.

Simply put, a strong leader with no management ability will have a clear sense of the goal.  Lacking management abilities, he or she has no idea how to get there and will likely damage the team in the process of figuring it out.  A strong manager with no leadership ability can organize the team and plan for contingencies.  However, the work will progress slowly, uncertainly and directionless in absence of a goal.

These two disciplines of thought must work in unison, as much as possible.  Ideally, the team should be staffed with both strong leaders and managers.  If your project or team seems aimless or progress is slow, then the company needs to recognize that they have not committed adequate resources to one group or the other.  Potentially, they may have also sought to have a single individual cover both disciplines - which frequently doesn't work.

To highlight this more in future posts, I've already started working on a series of mini-blog posts simply stated "Bad Manager" and "Bad Leader."  We'll save those for the future.

-k