Duke Nukem Forever Dev Calls E3 "Irrelevant"

In what can only be called a clash between a pot and a kettle, Scott Miller, head of alleged Duke Nukem Forever developer 3D Realms, has said E3 is 'irrelevant.'"

In an email to Next-Gen, Miller once again insisted that progress is being made on Duke Nukem Forever, saying, "Development is swimming along nicely. Seriously nicely." Despite that, Miller made it quite clear the game wouldn't be making an appearance at E3 this year, saying, "It's just that we view E3 as irrelevant nowadays. In fact, I wasn't even aware it was coming up."

E3 is currently struggling to answer questions of its relevance from numerous quarters following its shift from a gaming extravaganza to a small, press-only event in 2007. The show was criticized by both gamers and journalists as a result, and attention moved from E3 to other, more consumer-friendly events such as the Penny Arcade Expo. The ESA, responsible for the show, has since seen several of its members leave the organization, and while nobody has said so officially, rumors persist that dissatisfaction with the direction of E3 is at least one of the factors behind questions over the leadership of current ESA President Michael Gallagher.

Miller may very well have a point, but the nuclear-tipped irony of his statement is impossible to ignore. Since announcing the game in April 1997, 3D Realms has released intermittent Duke Nukem Forever promotional materials over the years but otherwise has little to show for its efforts. The promised game has been anticipated and derided in equal measure, and become synonymous with ridiculously excessive development times and vaporware. Whether the game will ever actually be released, much less live up to the expectations created by a decade-plus development cycle, is anyone's guess.

Permalink

My sensors have detected an exceptionally high amount of Attention Whoring Radiations emanating from this Miller individual. I'd suggest to proceed with extreme caution, until the release of DNF becomes relevant again.

E3 is irrelevant. "Development cycle" is irrelevant. Release dates are irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

Arbre:
My sensors have detected an exceptionally high amount of Attention Whoring Radiations emanating from this Miller individual. I'd suggest to proceed with extreme caution, until the release of DNF becomes relevant again.

Although you right, so is he, E3 has effectively faded into obscurity now.

Is E3's relevance relevant anymore?

SilentHunter7:
Is E3's relevance relevant anymore?

Only to those that are already irrelevant. Of course, the ones that are irrelevant may think they are relevant, and if they outnumber the ones that are in fact relevant, then the ones that are relevant will become irrelevant and...

*Brain explodes*

qbert4ever:

SilentHunter7:
Is E3's relevance relevant anymore?

Only to those that are already irrelevant. Of course, the ones that are irrelevant may think they are relevant, and if they outnumber the ones that are in fact relevant, then the ones that are relevant will become irrelevant and...

*Brain explodes*

The logical outcome is that everyone is relevant except E3. *Pieces humpty dumpty back together again*

I was unaware as to how big PAX had actually become. So basically PAX is the new E3 nowadays?

You know what else is irrelevant? Hey guys, should I tell the game dev he's irrelevant? Nah, I won't.

In related news, pretty much the entire gaming world calls Duke Nukem Forever irrelevant. Said one gamer who would only be identified by his online "handle", The Rogue Wolf, "This guy's statement probably would've had more of an impact- as in, any at all- if he'd said it back when E3 was relevant. He should keep working on Duke Nukem: Whenever and keep his gab shut."

And here's Chuck with the weather.

Which is the relevant irrelevance?

He claims E3 is irrelevant, I say his game has long since become irrelevant so by that logic he should be preparing an E3 presentation...

Seriously though, over a decade of development costs and they're still pushing it forward? How do they expect to make back even a fraction of what they've expended?

23 "relevants" & "irrelevants".
Keep on going and we might make the record.

The irony is that companies are leaving the ESA, in part because of the state of E3, but E3 is in that state because the very same companies were unwilling to spend money on it anymore.

Pot-kettle-black, methinks