When making a portfolio for games development, is it more important to show you can get through making some nice, completed, polished games, or is better to say "I have an particular interest in X subject for game development" and show off some nice demos that show an understanding of the subject and how to improve performance with the technical problems related to it? Or should you just work on whatever you like to do (which I guess just echos the second part of the first question)?

I have an interest in graphics programming and making efficient data structures for rendering. I like working on making stuff look pretty and efficient algorithms for rendering/accessing resources before implementing it in a game. Is it a good idea to specialize this much? It seems like having a portfolio full of complete games (regardless of how you made them) is more useful for people that want to show off their ability to design and plan out a game at a high level.

Also, I'm wondering if my BFA degree will really work against me with companies cutting out the majority of applicants when the job prefers someone with a BS in Computer Science.

My BFA is in Electronic Media but in hindsight, I would've preferred choosing art as a minor, or even a CS minor to my art major. It's not an immediate concern as I'm not thinking of applying for work any time soon. On the other hand I would've had a stronger math background for my programming interests.

Your portfolio ideally would match the job description you're going for.

Does the job you're going for have a description that involves writing a complete game by yourself? Very few do.

Any time I've interviewed programmers, I've always been interested in what parts of the game were challenging or interesting from a programming perspective. I don't care about the game itself. I don't care if the game's fun, because the person isn't being hired as a designer. I don't care if the person had time to finish a game because he had lots of time to sit around doing nothing.

Almost anything that's interesting or challenging from a programmer's perspective in a game can be pulled out and implemented in (say) 1/20 the amount of time.

I basically agree with A Brain in a Vat. I don't have any industry experience mind you but personally it seems ridiculous to judge someone based on art when you are hiring them for programming. However a polished game may draw more interest to some people so it kinda depends.

A complete game helps as an example of well, being able to complete things. It really doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is though, so don't go insane. If you have various tech demo's showing knowledge in various areas not related to the game that is an added benefit. I personally like to hire people with hobby projects over anything else since it suggests they have a real passion and not just a desire to get a 9-5 paycheck. Well, of course assuming they are good and references don't turn them out as raging lunatics and horrible coders.

What should be in a portfolio?
If you want to get a programming job - demos and source code.
If you want a level design job - some levels you designed.
If you want to be an artist - your best most kickass art.
If you want to be in audio - samples of audio you've created or engineered.
If you want to be in design - samples of your writing, and lists of game credits.
If you want to be a writer - samples of your writing, and lists of writing credits.

A complete game helps as an example of well, being able to complete things. It really doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is though, so don't go insane. If you have various tech demo's showing knowledge in various areas not related to the game that is an added benefit. I personally like to hire people with hobby projects over anything else since it suggests they have a real passion and not just a desire to get a 9-5 paycheck. Well, of course assuming they are good and references don't turn them out as raging lunatics and horrible coders.

This is misguided. Not having completed a game is not the same as being in it just for a paycheck.

All you're ensuring is that you are hiring people who have a passion for completing an entire game. Do you have something against hiring a graphics programmer who has a passion for graphics? Would you turn down an AI programmer who has a passion for AI, with lots of kickass AI demos, because he hasn't finished a game completely, a skill that's unrelated to the task you're hiring him for?

Show me a company that has "has completed coding an entire game" in a job description, and I'll show you a company that has no clue what it's doing.

A complete game helps as an example of well, being able to complete things. It really doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is though, so don't go insane. If you have various tech demo's showing knowledge in various areas not related to the game that is an added benefit. I personally like to hire people with hobby projects over anything else since it suggests they have a real passion and not just a desire to get a 9-5 paycheck. Well, of course assuming they are good and references don't turn them out as raging lunatics and horrible coders.

It wouldn't count against you to have a completed game -- especially if the company were seeking more of an "entry-level" or "generalist" -- someone competent in many areas, rather than specializing in one or two. (Ideally, one should have at least 2 "specialties" and be rounded enough to be competent in many or all problem areas).

Anyhow, this "stick-to-it-iveness" you describe can be equally well demonstrated by having *complete* technical demos -- One's which are both accurate and performant, ones which solve most, or all, off the odd corner cases and which don't explode when the moon is in retrograde. Additional polish will also be appreciated -- for example, having a workable UI to adjust all the interesting parameters of the demo.

This is really a question of resource allocation and time management -- The question is not "is it better to have a full game or a technical demo" -- the question is "How many interesting, polished technical demos can I complete in the time it would take to complete a game? How many can I complete in the time it would take to complete a *polished* game?"

It wouldn't count against you to have a completed game -- especially if the company were seeking more of an "entry-level" or "generalist" -- someone competent in many areas, rather than specializing in one or two. (Ideally, one should have at least 2 "specialties" and be rounded enough to be competent in many or all problem areas).

Anyhow, this "stick-to-it-iveness" you describe can be equally well demonstrated by having *complete* technical demos -- One's which are both accurate and performant, ones which solve most, or all, off the odd corner cases and which don't explode when the moon is in retrograde. Additional polish will also be appreciated -- for example, having a workable UI to adjust all the interesting parameters of the demo.

This is really a question of resource allocation and time management -- The question is not "is it better to have a full game or a technical demo" -- the question is "How many interesting, polished technical demos can I complete in the time it would take to complete a game? How many can I complete in the time it would take to complete a *polished* game?"

My argument pro demo rather than full game is a bit stronger than yours. I believe a demo is better than a full game. If I am interviewing a candidate, there's a good chance I will download a tech demo to play with it, and maybe even peek at the code. It's much more unlikely that I would download a whole game and play through it looking for signs of interesting features. No one has the time to go through the source code of an entire game looking for interesting code.

Imagine if you were hiring a plumber and he said, "Behold! The house that I built with my bare hands!" You'd say "Okay, that's nice, congratulations.. but I kind of just want to see if you're a good plumber. We already have carpenters and electricians."

[quote name='AllEightUp' timestamp='1314032255' post='4852388']
A complete game helps as an example of well, being able to complete things. It really doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is though, so don't go insane. If you have various tech demo's showing knowledge in various areas not related to the game that is an added benefit. I personally like to hire people with hobby projects over anything else since it suggests they have a real passion and not just a desire to get a 9-5 paycheck. Well, of course assuming they are good and references don't turn them out as raging lunatics and horrible coders.

This is misguided. Not having completed a game is not the same as being in it just for a paycheck.

All you're ensuring is that you are hiring people who have a passion for completing an entire game. Do you have something against hiring a graphics programmer who has a passion for graphics? Would you turn down an AI programmer who has a passion for AI, with lots of kickass AI demos, because he hasn't finished a game completely, a skill that's unrelated to the task you're hiring him for?

Show me a company that has "has completed coding an entire game" in a job description, and I'll show you a company that has no clue what it's doing.
[/quote]


You take this out of context. For a "NEW" programmer just out of school these are the types of things I look for. For old hands, if they are specialized that's fine, but I still like to know they are broadening their horizons so a hobby renderer and possibly some goofy stuff they've tried helps.

You take this out of context. For a "NEW" programmer just out of school these are the types of things I look for. For old hands, if they are specialized that's fine, but I still like to know they are broadening their horizons so a hobby renderer and possibly some goofy stuff they've tried helps.

But why do you prefer a full game to a few interesting demos showing mastery over a few interesting problems?