However, once people are attached to those primal threads, they can, IF THEY CHOOSE, go deeper. That’s where in BioShock all the other storytelling devices kick in: the diaries, the public service announcements, the posters, the thousands of little scenes in the world of Rapture that tell the story of what happened there. But I like to assume there’s going to be some part of the audience that doesn’t care about that, and those people can opt out of it. But for the people who do care, they can choose to opt in and get a fairly complex story (and a VERY complex story relative to other console first person shooters).

However, it’s also a question of training the audience. Shock 2 sold 200k units. Deus Ex maybe sold a couple hundred thousand more than that. So there’s simply not a lot of people out there who have experience with narrative oriented shooters. The broad shooter audience is just not that accustomed to complicated story. However, I think BioShock (and other games this year such as Portal) demonstrates that audience is ready for more. Just like FPS added more gameplay elements over time (the move to full 3d, vehicles, objective based stuff like in Battlefield) the story telling space can become more complex as the audience gets comfortable receiving story in game rather than in pre- rendered cutscenes. In short, the next game we do can be more complex, and the one after that can be more complex still.

The players aren't changing, Levine. There will always be dullwitted people out there, and developers will be faced with the same decision 10 years from now - aim deep and make waves or aim wide and catch fish. You just have to decide where you stand. Do you want to make money or do you want to earn our enduring respect?

In the meantime, please don't spin this like it's our failing. We were playing games with higher complexity a decade ago, and those games we still remember and play and discuss to this day (games that deliver story in-game even -- not a new concept).