Much of it comes from having looked over many resumes. I've been at this for two decades and have interviewed many candidates over the years. I've talked with many people about what they thought about applicants based on resumes and CVs, and I've formed my own impressions as well.
For completeness, I'll explain more.
The "skills" section is nearly useless. Some people list an enormous number of tools and technologies in an effort to be selected by database tools, and I can't complain too much about that. If you want a section like "skills keywords" with every word you can imagine, knock yourself out. For me as the human reading it, it does little good. If I see "C++ 7 years", does that mean they read some books on it during high school, used it a few times in college, and nothing more? Or does it mean they used "C with classes" for a few years in industry without actually knowing the language? Or does it mean over those years they made an intense study of the language, read the various standards, and actively work to increase their knowledge? When someone writes that they used Unreal, does that mean they downloaded it and gave up after trying to understand how blueprints work, or that they cobbled together a few small projects, or does it mean they actively read through the source to understand how pieces are put together?
Skills are far better seen in context. If you used tools or technologies in specific projects, call it out specifically. If I can see you had a one year project that used an engine, call it out. List what languages you use in projects in addition to the tools.
The choice between putting education first or work history first is all about which is most relevant. Education history is more important when you enter the field because it shows your biggest recent accomplishment. After a few years your workplace accomplishments are more recent and more telling about your current skill set.
The content of each line should tell me what you actually did on each project so I can understand both your skill sets and your aspirations. I also invite people during interviews to explain what they want to do in the future, to help people who have been pigeon-holed to escape. Someone may have spent five years working on network synchronization and develop skills in the area, but they would much prefer to move into a GPE role. It also serves the purpose most people were hoping for in the skills section.
The content should help me answer two questions. On the employer side, I'm interested in (1) will you do the job, and (2) will you fit in? Your work history gives good guidance on if you can do the job. If you've done the job before it is the best evidence that you can do the job. If you haven't done the job before, I look for similar projects that suggest you could do the job, work that suggests you are smart, work that suggests you are reliable. The question about fitting in does not mean "young, white, and male", it means if I think you will fit with the culture. If we're trying to fill in a highly skilled team of introverts, hiring a boisterous extrovert could cause a disturbance. Similarly, if we have a team of high-spirited socialites, adding an introvert could break up the camaraderie. On the flip side, sometimes the studio is looking to break up groups or to add diversity, and we're hunting for that social need in addition to the technical need. But since you as the candidate don't know those details, you should put in your most natural face.
You as the candidate have different questions, like if you think you can do the job, if you think the studio would be a good fit for your life, if it satisfies your individual needs. Your needs are likely a mix of pay, stability, personal growth, career growth, social needs, and your own values. Those are for you to investigate about the company.
Embedding what you used in the statements of what you did serves an additional purpose. If I want to see if you've used a tool or technology, I have to actually spend a moment to read what you have accomplished. Since I invest more time seeing the details (rather than quickly scanning and discarding it) I am more likely to consider the application more deeply.
Finally, generalized resumes serve as a starting point, but since you should be working your social network it should be highly tailored to each job. Some job hunting is done with a broad net, you cast it out and apply to many places, but you have no specific aims. This is among the least effective job hunting methods. Other job hunting is more like spear fishing. You invest significant time and effort in isolating and preparing to capture a single job, through social networking and working your contacts and researching the company, you prepare a sharpened attack carefully crafted for the target job, and do all you can to get the job.
You should also go get a copy of the book "What Color Is Your Parachute?" It has been a best-seller for about 40 years and every library and used book store has a copy if you don't want to buy it new. Get a recent edition and study it.
The book covers many topics, particularly about identifying your own needs and what you need to get from the company, to a lesser extend it covers what the company wants from you. It also covers in-depth methods to do the most effective job hunting, and warns you of the least effective methods. You should still do the less effective methods, but only when you have no more leads in the more effective methods.