Concept artists Chance and Jeremiah design a Beast Armor for Pyro, drawn from a predatory crab-like creature on Pyro 1 with a queen and soft-shelled young. They cover helmet-first design, bioluminescence, possible shell crafting and trade rewards, Photoshop versus ZBrush, and hiring.
TL;DRThe art director holds a high-level kickoff discussing what makes sense and what to avoid, but stays deliberately non-prescriptive so the concept artist keeps creative room.
Usually we do a kickoff meeting and we just start discussing at a high level what our thoughts are on it. As an example, would you want to use the little heads off those baby crabs in the thing? Probably not. I mean, we want this thing to look appealing at the end of the day. And I think it just kind of ruined the whole design, honestly. So what I think we usually talk about is, what would make sense here? What would we want to stay away from? Just initial direction. But I also don't want to be so prescriptive to be like, this is exactly what we're going to do, and Jeremiah, don't be creative at all. There's enough to get going if he has questions, that kind of thing. But then we just get started and hopefully work out some cool stuff that we're happy with.
TL;DRFangs or tentacles could be included only if they serve a plausible function for harsh-environment Pyro settlers, since good design hints at functionality rather than decoration.
I mean, we could. We could, but also the biggest thing is what would be the purpose of it. So that's another thing. The settlers in Pyro, without spoiling too much, they live in a very harsh environment. And so, yeah, they probably would have some flourishes here and there, but I don't think they would run around like this for no reason. It would have to serve some sort of function. So we can think about how we can incorporate that. So if we can find a really good excuse on the functionality of it, then yeah. Because the thing is, for me personally, if I had free rein to do whatever I want, I would give it spikes and he's got a little whip and a little foxtail. The thing that really sells a cool design is when you hint at functionality and coming up with new ideas from that.
No, I normally start with the helmet, and the reason why is because we as a species, we communicate by looking at the eyes and the face. And so when you talk to somebody or when you see somebody first, you don't look at their feet or their hands first. Most of the time you look at their face because that's how you identify people. And helmets, it's the same thing. If you're wearing glasses or something, your eyes will go there first and then your brain will swap to whatever it's interested in next. And so for me, when I concept something, the helmet is always the most important thing. And then I try to have the armor or everything below follow through afterwards. Unless there's a specific lore reason or design reason for something else to be more important.
TL;DRNo designer was present so gameplay perks can't be confirmed, but the artists say the team is discussing rewards like craftable or valuable shell and possible radiation resistance, all still undecided.
We don't actually have a designer with us on the show today, so as far as gameplay implications, we can't really talk. That would be the purview of the active feature team.
One of the things we're discussing is, if we get creatures like this in the game and there's this high risk to, say, fighting one of these things, there needs to also be a high reward for if you are successful. And so that's something we're just in discussion about: well, maybe, for example, the shell is a craftable resource and you can do something with it, or maybe it's also quite valuable and you could trade this for other things. The plan for Pyro is that it's a very harsh environment, a lot of radiation, all kinds of solar storms, and so maybe this hardened shell is something that would protect you from those kinds of elements and stuff like that. So all of it's still TBD, but those are the discussions that we're having right now about what, from a gameplay perspective, makes sense. And so yeah, maybe this armor, if you get this stuff, you've got better radiation resistance or something else like that.
TL;DRThe crab began from its Pyro 1 location and was conceived as a naturally evolved predator, with a queen and hive of young in caves, possibly camouflaged as rocks, while its prey remains undecided.
So we started off, first of all, with the location. We knew that it was going to be Pyro 1 in this case, and that helped us with a lot of things and just deciding what would make sense on a planet like this. The discussions that we had were, well, did this animal develop naturally, or was this something that was seeded on the planet? In this case it's supposed to be naturally occurring on this planet and it's evolved with these conditions in mind. We knew we wanted a predator, so this thing lives off of hunting other prey that's on this planet, or maybe also humans in this case. And then the other part that we decided upon was that the large one you see in the image is the queen of basically a hive, that she's got all these little babies that also are there, and possibly these creatures use the cave systems to lay their eggs in. And that's why you find these clusters of the little ones inside the caves. And then we also discussed other things like, if it's on the surface, what does it do? And how might you come across it? And so we've talked about these things actually using camouflage with the rocks around them. So when they all hunker down, they might look exactly like a pile of those rocks and you might not even know that it's there. So definitely a few things that helped us make some decisions with what we wanted to do with it. But we still have lots of other things to work out as to what other creatures might exist on these planets and stuff. For example, what are the prey animals this thing eats? We haven't got to that point yet.
Yes. The bioluminescence factor, definitely we want to try that out. And we've also talked about, as an example, that the little ones are more like a soft-shell sort of crustacean. So they only get this really thick, hardened type of shell over time. And this also would, if that's the way we go, play into the gameplay aspect of it. In other words, you could go shoot a whole cluster of the little ones, but you're not going to get any resources off of them the same way you would if you do the more difficult task of fighting one of the queens, right? So the reward is not there for the little ones as much.
Capes? Dude, I've done so many capes. I mean, capes always make things look super majestic and really badass. I can say badass, right? I mean, that is one way to do it. And that'll also make it look asymmetrical, too.
TL;DRIt depends: Photoshop is faster for quick early variations, while ZBrush suits refining a concept already approved, and CIG lets artists use whichever tools work best.
It depends. For me, when I'm doing a bunch of blue sky stuff where I have no idea what it is, Photoshop is the fastest and most efficient tool to do these things just because of how quickly I can change things. For ZBrush, as much as I love the program, and I do, you're a lot slower in making variations. Because sculpting something like this could potentially take maybe five minutes when I can just do it in three seconds in Photoshop. Photoshop is just about getting the initial feel and the idea of said asset. It depends. If I know for sure that Chance will like something, and maybe Chance has seen a napkin sketch of something, then yeah, I might jump into ZBrush and just refine the heck out of it.
One of the things I've discovered through the six years here at CIG now is that we're very accommodating as far as letting the artists work in the tools that work best for them. We have an entire tools team that's separated across several studios dedicated to building all the different converters and importers and stuff necessary to let artists work in the things that allow them to be most effective and then bring that in.
Also, for a concept artist, there's never one method to solve a problem. I think I've said that multiple times, concept artists are problem solvers. I have the most respect for concept artists, and a lot of the guys in the studio will ask me how long they have and they'll try to solve the problem, and they'll pick whichever program or workflow is the most efficient to get the job done. Because if you're like, hey, I only do ZBrush, and I'm going to be like, hey, I need 10 of these sketches by 6 p.m., they're going to struggle a little bit because they might not have enough time. Or I might be like, hey, I need you to figure out the anatomy of this thing, but I need you to be very specific. Or maybe a character modeler needs more context of what something is. Maybe you do it in Photoshop, maybe you do it in ZBrush, maybe you actually sculpt on top of their mesh just to help them out. It really depends. There never is one method of doing concept, because it's just ideas at the end of the day.
No, no, no. This was just from the base undersuit. I don't necessarily choose the color just yet, because I'm just looking at shapes and silhouette. And so what I'll normally do is, after I have a couple shapes that I want, then I'll color them in what I think is most appropriate.
TL;DRChance Rowe studied illustration, initially wanting to do comics, taught himself 3D, started in the games industry in 1997, and worked mostly on characters at companies including EA and Riot Games.
I actually have my degree in illustration. Originally, when I was in high school, I was very into comics and actually was interested in becoming a comic book artist. And it was actually when I was in art school that I learned a little more about games. You have to remember this is in the 90s, when video game careers were not exactly a thing that schools were teaching. But I've been playing games my whole life and was like, oh, this actually seems even better. I taught myself 3D and I got my start in the industry in 1997. Most of my career has been in characters. I've done vehicles, worked at quite a few different companies and on games. I've worked at EA, worked at Riot Games for a long time. And yeah, I definitely love the industry. We're all pretty privileged to be able to be involved in something where it's a passion at the end of the day. And I think that that's something that not everyone gets opportunities to. So yeah, definitely grateful that it's something that I'm a part of.
It was a title that never shipped, actually. I was at Cavedog Entertainment, the first company I worked at, and for the first two years, both projects I worked on were cancelled.
I'm on a Wacom tablet right now at home. I actually was exclusively only using the tablet, but then a lot of the character artists use Cintiqs in the office. And so I converted, and I miss it very much. I don't have a Cintiq at home, but it's also just a lot of space. And so I like the compact tablet, but at the office I use the Cintiq.
TL;DRThere is no formula; modularity limits and technical feasibility apply, the team must be excited by a design, and it must fit realism, lore and backstory rather than being too fantastical.
Well, I mean, there are limitations that we have to abide by. Every project is different. For us, for most of our assets for the clothing for the people, it needs to be modular so you can mix and match the pieces. And so we do have volumes and zones that we have to abide by if it is swappable pieces. So in that regard, some of the things even we're doing here might not play by those rules. So that's something to consider. But as far as the cool factor, at the end of the day, if we're not excited about it, then we're not going to do it. I think that's kind of the balance you have to take. And as far as what I think is important for Star Citizen, it's the immersion, the realism. If it's too fantastical, to the point of just being silly and outrageous, it's not going to fit with what everything else is. But in every project you're on, that's going to be a different balance that you have to take where, for example, we're not going to create something that doesn't fit into lore, right? We're not just going to plug something in. There has to be a backstory. It has to be a reason why; no matter what it is, it has to have a backstory. Not every game is like that, right? Some games, like fighting games: why is that person fighting this person? Aren't they friends? It's just like, who cares? It's Smash Brothers. I want to go play that game, right? So that's kind of the things that we have to consider. But there's many, many considerations. And part of our job is to work with all the other teams and make sure that design and lore and everything, we're making something that fits in with all that. And then from the technical side, can we do it?
TL;DRThey look for a fitting realistic sci-fi style and for portfolios showing the thought behind functional designs and the progression of many varied ideas, not just polished illustrations.
Well, for me personally, obviously the style definitely helps. I've been at CIG for a little over five years now. I helped establish, at least on the character front, the style and the look. As long as Chance and I are confident that the people who want to join the Star Citizen team can execute in that specific look and style, then that's where we like to start the conversation of potentially working with us, because there is a specific look. As much as I love the Disney and the animation style, and I think some paintings that people do are gorgeous and are super inspiring, that probably won't translate well with the realistic look, sci-fi look that we have for Star Citizen. There's that. The second thing that I look out for, when concept artists do art, when they work on their portfolio, is how far did they think into the functionality of their design? Is it just cool, or did they actually think about the little details? Concept artists have to be, in a weird way, great storytellers, because you're telling a story through whatever your character or the scene is that you're trying to paint. Those are little things that I look out for when I look at a portfolio and stuff like that.
Jared, you were asked in the last question about what we look for in concept artists. I can speak to that a little bit. One of the things that I've mentioned when I went to GDC and reviewed portfolios and stuff is that I think too often concept art gets confused with illustration. And this is a really important thing: making beautiful illustrations, that's one thing. But concept art is about the ideas, right? And what I love to see in a portfolio is, show me all the steps from the first round to the thing getting created, right? And that really helps me know how this person is as far as just coming up with cool ideas, right? Versus, you found reference and you painted, you did a pretty painting, you did a pretty illustration. That's not concept art. Concept art is coming up with all of the great ideas. And then, to Jeremiah's point, what's the thought behind them? How would they work? That's really, really important. If I see a sketchbook or portfolio where you see tons of really different and cool ideas all around towards finalizing the concept, that shows me that that person is going to have a lot of value when you really ask them to, hey, come up with something cool. Many, many times, if you have a concept artist working on something, I love it when I'm pleasantly surprised by something: oh, man, I wasn't even expecting that. That's awesome. Let's go down this thing, right?
TL;DRA reference board is very important to Jeremiah because it breaks his habitual shapes and grounds designs in real-world photos, and he gets nervous when concept artists don't use one.
Really good. I never just paint like this. I don't. The reason why is because if I just stay like this, I'll start making shapes that only I make out of habit. So things will start to be 45-degree angles. And also because there's a lot of shapes that I tend to make. That's kind of what my style is, and forms. But then the reference board here will inspire me to make different shapes. For instance, this shape right here, I was looking at this pauldron. I was like, oh, that's actually a really cool thing to implement here. And what can I do to change things up a bit from what I would normally do? When I see a concept artist without a reference board, it makes me a little nervous. Because having a reference board, it's just good to have for inspiration. I try not to have concept art or illustrations as a reference, just because sometimes they can be a little too whimsical, but photos are actual real world. So these are actually crafted. So I could use that. So at least whatever I'm drawing is based on reality.
Hey, you know what? Maybe it's from... It's woven from the tentacles. That's what I was thinking. Definitely not because I just wanted to put something there to break the silhouette.
Yes. I recommend people not use that until they're at the very end of their rendering, because dodge and burn will take the saturation and the value of what's underneath and crank it up, so you could potentially, quote unquote, burn your image, and it won't be salvageable if you do it too much. But the eyedropper also keeps me within, I'm only using colors and values that are within this painting, so I know it won't be too dark or too bright when I paint something on top of it.
TL;DRJeremiah jokingly describes subtly polishing his favorite option, and says he'd leave out the weakest concept under a tight deadline, while Chance notes they need more time to work these properly.
This is a neat trick. I'll share my little industry secret. So I'll obviously number something. And if you have a favorite, right? So my second one's kind of my favorite. What I actually tend to do, in secret, and they don't teach you this in school, is I'll add a little bit of... It's barely noticeable, but it's there.
So number one, honestly, if I had to show Chance something for real, the professional side of me would actually do this. That's what I would do, because I'm not confident with number one. I'm trying to warm up, and the ideas are kind of there, but it's a little bit of a mess all over the place. So for me, I personally would do something like this. I wouldn't even include it. And if Chance asked me, do you have more, I'd be like, well, I started on this one, but I'm not confident in that, right? And so number one, I think we have a little bit more of the alien shape. So I had a little bit of, maybe use some of the toes and stuff like that, or the claws off of a creature. We got that shield thing on here. You got a little bit of a tentacle element here. This one, I guess I took more of the survivalist route, where the creature's not that accented. It's not prominent on here, but the survivalist element is prominent on here, with a little bit of string and stuff like that. And then, at least in the texture phase, we can add a little bit more bumps and show more of this type of stuff on here if I had more time.
Honestly though, one, I think if I pushed it, maybe if I spent 30 more minutes on it, I could probably salvage it. But if I was on a tight deadline, I'd probably just remove it.
Yeah, and the reality is, we obviously need more time to truly work on these things. This is not something that we've done a bunch of before. We will spend more time and work through it. I think the idea is cool. We'll just get something and give it the proper time.
It depends. Actually, the RSI Explorer suit, the white one, that one I did in 45 minutes. That was just one sketch. I remember it was like the Wild West days, like four years ago. And they're like, a character artist needs a concept now. So I did it in 45 minutes, and I passed it off. And they were like, all right, we'll work with what we got. And it became a thing.