Oh, Right, There Was a Nintendo Direct Thing

So, because Nintendo is in panic mode because they are not used to selling less than a hojillion (it is a number, totally) consoles at any given moment in time, despite the Wii U's sales being...well, completely reasonable for what it is, we have some new announcements.  New announcements that are....mostly unnecessary.  Popular media might be saying that Nintendo is 'failing' with the Wii U (which is impossible to tell at this early juncture and it pains me to have to make this a fucking point to talk about) and while they're perhaps not advertising it well enough it is, as I said, selling fine enough.  Remember, once upon a time the 3DS was considered "failing" as well and boy oh boy, that happened, didn't it?  Really, I think Nintendo's panic is stemming from a sense that there is actually competition now - let's face it, the Wii was in its own league in more ways than one so they haven't been on this front in a long time.  But they decided to enter a different ring this go around and I don't think they were prepared for it at all.

If you've got the muscle, then you might as well flaunt it, is the thought process I'm going with here and while Nintendo's 'muscle' is a little flimsy with me, I am not in the majority here.  So let's go over that first and get it out of the way.  Possibly the only thing I would care about in all of this is the above-pictured Yoshi's Island game that is, clearly, being helmed by the Kirby's Epic Yarn team.  It looks absolutely wonderful for what it is, and while I don't really hold a particularly different spot for the Yoshi's Island games over any of Nintendo's other series, it's good fun and with this art style, I can only hope to see some real good things.  Kirby's Epic Yarn, from what I was told, brought some rather neat things to the table, really taking hold of that fabric universe concept and running with it.  Maybe I'll find out myself one day if I pick up a Wii U and a copy of the game, but that's basically all the information that I found about it - It is a Yoshi game and it is being done up in Epic Yarn style.  And that's probably enough for now.

Actually, I lied.  If there was -anything- I cared about at all from the Nintendo Direct, it would be the news that Xenoblade Chronicles is probably (definitely) getting a sequel for the Wii U, of course.  I am in the slightly awkward position of knowing absolutely nothing about any of this, however, beyond the fact that I friggin' -want- to play Xenoblade Chronicles and the only thing standing in my way is owning a Wii outright (or, again, a Wii U) and the game which currently retails for $50 if you can find it in a store and good luck with that.  My excitement stems from the dangerous, perilous place of being told that it is, in fact, a fantastic RPG.  That sort of information had led me astray in the past (no, I'm not linking it this time, you know what I'm talking about) and it could very well be the case here.  But....I doubt it, considering the team that's behind the games.  So if anything, I'm just glad they're getting a push to do what they do - make good RPGs.  Hopefully one day I will be able to say I have played both.

Another 'no info, just a thing that says it's happening' tidbit was the announced Shin Megami Tensei x Fire Emblem game which is, yes, Shin Megami Tensei and Fire Emblem in the same game.  Why?  I don't know.  How?  Beats the hell out of me.  There was absolutely no information beyond a thing showing that they were in this thing and that development is 'in progress'.  Personally, I'm not at all -what- kind of sense this makes....because it's not really striking me any right now.  Maybe it's just because I've been considering both series by their previous years, but both seemed to have been in a transition away from Consoles, moving on to handhelds.  Indeed, the latest entries to -both- series are being released on the 3DS in the coming future and the last console releases for either series was in 2007 (Fire Emblem on the Wii) and 2003/4 (SMT 3:  Nocturne) respectively.  So to combine them both -and- put them on a console is a little wonky.  Perhaps it's because of the off-screen play that kinda sorta makes it like a handheld that you can't take anywhere, but that's flimsy.  It all is, kind of.

Speaking of flimsy, after all the hurr-durring and grumbling about Sony's line of HD up-makes, I'm seriously waiting for some people to eat crow after The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD became a thing.  Because this is the exact scenario, and it's not even one that Nintendo's new at.  Excusing the 'Nintendo selling the same game to you over and over again' (more on that in a moment) meme, I need only point at The Legend of Zelda:  Ocarina of Time 3D and Starfox 64 3D to show that Nintendo has absolutely no qualms pimping out their old titles with shinier graphics.  Yet you never ever hear those titled 'cash-grabs' or anything of the sort.  It's a bit petty of me to harp on, I realize, but well, somebody's gotta.  Anyways, aside from the announcement of Wind Waker HD, there was a little bit said confirming the existence of a new Zelda title for the Wii U in development that will 'challenge the old conventions' to sort of reinvent the series a bit, but that's literally all that was said about it.  There might be info about it at E3, but I would highly doubt it.

Finishing out the Wii U news from the direct, the important bits, at least, it was mentioned that the Virtual Console is headed towards the Wii U proper, for full implementation rather than simply from Wii Mode.  There is a slight caveat here, however:  if you're planning on being able to off-screen play your favorite Nintendo or Super Nintendo games that are supported, then expect to pay for the privilege.  It should be noted that when the Virtual Console launches, it will only support Nintendo and Super Nintendo titles and not all of the ones that the Wii's Virtual Console supports.  Because Backwards Compatibility isn't just a flip to switch and we've all been aware of that already, but I somehow think people will manage to be patient, considering it's Nintendo behind this which isn't unfair at all, no sir.  Anyways, if you've purchased an NES game or SNES game through the Wii's VC then you've probably already played it by now and if you want to use it in Wii U, as mentioned, you'll have to pay for that.

Now, I've heard tell that this is because the VC games are packed in their own individual emulators, thus it requires a new emulator for the Wii U which is incomparably stupid, for the record.  It seems like a smart enough idea at first - packing the game with the emulator basically all-but ensures that it'll work with it because they've obviously been tested with one another.  That's fine.  It does, however, completely kill the possibility of a quick-n-dirty solution in the future and, if there's anything we've learned from the combined efforts of the VC and the PS1/2 Classics over these last years, it's that if a quick-n-dirty doesn't exist, neither does the game anymore.  Developers simply don't have time, nor the drive, to put anything into repackaging old games that sell for a pittance, and even signing off on making it a thing and paying a slight cost is far too much to ask in many cases.

So what does this mean?  Well, if that's the case, then don't expect to see much of the meager selection of the NES/SNES games on the Wii's VC to make the jump to the Wii U's VC, for one.  They might get a good portion, hell they might surprise me and get more than half, all-told, but there's no way the Wii U's VC will be 1:1 for the Wii's.  Beyond that, thanks to the $1/$1.50 Wii U tax (For NES and SNES respectively) either expect similar things for the next Nintendo console (which is admittedly -years- away), or expect that the next this whole thing comes around, there won't be even an option - Wii U mode or bust.  For what it's worth, it seems like the extra dollar and change has been built-in to the pricing of the NES/SNES games for the Wii U VC (NES games run around $5 on Wii VC, and will be $5-6 on the Wii U, SNES generally run $8, will be $8-9 on the Wii U VC) so at least Nintendo (probably) isn't singling out the folks who have actually supported them previously with these purchases and demanding an extra buck for a full-featured experience.  Of course, if they were, who would honestly raise a fuss about it?  I'm genuinely curious on that.

On top of that, Nintendo basically made a lot of promises to unveil some Mario things at E3, Super Smash Bros. U and probably elaborate on some of the already mentioned pieces here.  So really, they're flaunting their big guns for no other reason than they can.  Mostly because, if we've heard right, E3 will be a big deal for Sony and Microsoft as well and Nintendo just loves trying to steal thunder whenever possible.  Well, they generally succeed at that anyway, so it's not really 'trying' so much as it's Nintendo not letting anyone else have a fair shake.  It's good business to be sure, but it's also just kind of a dick move.  A mountain of dick moves by this point.  Yet every other company is 'the jerk company', always trying to screw over everyone else, including you, up-charging you for the shiny new thing and offering what is clearly sub-standard service.  Nintendo never does that, clearly! 

A Very Nintendo News Dump

So, there've been a few Nintendo-centric things thrown out in the last couple days, and while they're not noteworthy enough to warrant a full big post, all three things are kind of enough of a deal that they warrant mentioning.  I kind of have a thing just for this type of occasion as we know, so I won't be very coy about it here.  I'm just going to bring up all three points, have my little opinion on them as I do, and just sort of put that out there as a thing.  I say that, because I know my ideas and opinions are very, er, counter to the general ideas and such I see on the places in the internet that I frequent.  What with being slightly critical and whatnot - apparently that's not a popular thing.  Who knew?

Anyways, the first bit of news is that that little thing Nintendo mentioned about being able to use two of the Wii U Gamepads, pictured above, was....well, it's -true-, but not so much immediately so.  In layman's terms, the Wii U games will only support one Gamepad at launch, which I think is different than saying the Wii U -itself- won't support two at launch.  Because I think it -is- expected to support two in itself, just that any of the shiny games you'll want to pick up alongside the console won't.  Which won't lead to any confusion in the household at all, no siree.  Actually, I suppose it won't if Nintendo has the foresight to -not- print that on the launch-shipping boxes so that anyone who would want to buy more than one Gamepad will either A.) Be in-the-know enough to know they can't effectively use it yet or B.) Someone who completely has no idea and decides to buy multiple Gamepads and will, again hopefully, be instructed that such a thing is unnecessary.  But I think something like "Supports Two Gamepads" will make it on the box regardless because who really cares right?

What the problem here is that this smacks of something that people would (and likely have) mocked Sony quite openly for in the past, yet there doesn't seem to be quite so much of that going around.  As usual with what could be said as a 'negative' story for Nintendo, the bulk of the opinion out there seems to be a lot of hand-waving and "bah, who needs it at launch anyways?"  While that mindset isn't wrong at all, even though there could be the argument that "Since they announced it, it needs to be usable in -some- fashion at start (which could still be possible with Nintendoland), I have to wonder where this popular opinion is when the company involved is -not- Nintendo.  This kind of level-headed thing is not exclusive to dealings with just one company, you realize, because we could honestly just take a look at everything like that and everything would be so much nicer.  Radical thinking, I know, but there it is.

Regardless of the fact that it's not going to happen, it's pretty -obvious- as to why it's not.  A lot of these games have been in development alongside the final tweaks of the system itself, meaning that they've worked the games from bottom to top to work with just what they were given - one Gamepad.  I would suggest that sending as much information as is needed to the Gamepad is not a simple process, so suggesting that it's possible for -two- seems to border on madness, and I can only see the games itself suffering for the attempt.  This may be unfounded, but I have heard that using two Gamepads caused a drastic FPS loss when shown off at E3, likely on the floor.  Granted, it's new, it's not anywhere near done and it's not going to be fine-tuned for a while post-launch (The Gamepad and its usage, I mean) but if that's true then it's...well, it's not a very positive suggestion for the future.  Certainly something to worry about regardless of something that I cannot found with proof at this time, since that screen is meant to hold a -lot- of data.

Something else that seems to have been said before...well, thought went into it is the idea that the Wii U will be designed to support free-to-play games, which is kind of a thing that has been happening.  FarmVille is only pictured because I imagine that's what comes to a lot of minds when the term 'free-to-play' is thrown out.  Personally, I think of Phantasy Star Online 2 because of recent conditioning but just that right there, I think, is something that shows the absolute scale of the term.  Of course, neither type of game is instantly what is going to be on the console, if anything, because it was just mentioned as a statement of the Wii U's infrastructure.  Notably, it mentions the 3DS' recent ability to add updates, patches and DLC as a contributing factor, since the whole layout is probably similar on the console being that the 3DS can (now) apparently do the same thing, should any developer decide the 3DS is -just- the place for their new game that they don't want to charge for anything beyond cosmetic items and such.

It's worth mentioning, in my opinion, because it's actually not worth mentioning.  It's such a non-issue that I have to wonder exactly why it was mentioned in the first place and why it was important in any facet.  I mean, maybe I'm a little under-excited because I've been exposed to this sort of thing for, uh....years with my time years ago with Maple Story, and then my time in Playstation Home as well as watching FreeRealms from afar, but I just thought it was sort of a given that that type of thing was going to happen henceforth.  I didn't realize that 'infrastructure' and 'online architecture' had to be put in place specifically to allow free-to-play and/or micro-transaction games.  But it is apparently a thing there, and it was a big enough deal that it had to be mentioned by Joystiq, so there it is.

I don't see how this is going to be used whatsoever.  One of the comments suggests Maple Story and/or Nexon's other properties which is quite possible, but there isn't a whole lot of other ground out there.  I don't see Nintendo rolling out their own version of Home (despite really wanting to so I could see the massive amount of hand-waving) nor do I see many MMOs jumping on the Wii U just because they -can- for the whole free-to-play thing.  The only 'child-friendly' ones out there that I know about are FreeRealms (which is understandably not going anywhere near it, being a Sony property) and Wizard 101 which I literally know nothing else about than the name and that I see commercials for it all the time and doubt it's free-to-play.  Given how Iwata has somewhat of a distaste for the model, I doubt anything wholly Nintendo will come out of it, so this one is a little unnecessary.  Which is totally why it was necessary to mention.

The last piece of information is possibly the biggest, hence why I held it for last.  On the subject of the Legend of Zelda, there are quite obviously many potentials including a game for the upcoming Wii U as well as the 'next' game for it on the 3DS.  Of course what that 'next' game could be is up in the air, considering the last one was a remake of the Nintendo 64's Ocarina of Time.  The logical progression would state that, given there were two Zelda games on the N64, Nintendo and ports/remakes go together like that, and the fact that it would make more than a little bit of money would point to Majora's Mask seeing a 3DS remake.  And that is certainly an option that's up in the air, apparently, however it's being contested with two other ideas.  It basically boils down to whether or not Nintendo wants to remake MM or A Link to the Past first.  That is most certainly a thing, but I can't claim that it's wholly positive.

Now, I'm not going to pretend you're dumb or anything and just state the simple conclusion one could draw from Occam's Razor is that, with the resources used to port Ocarina of Time still kicking around, and Majora's Mask mostly using the same resources as Ocarina of Time, it would be rather simple to make Majora's Mask for 3DS.  That is why I believe this is the course they're going to take since it is simply easy money in various quantities.  Despite what and how we like to romanticize it, Nintendo is a company that wants as much of your money as possible.  That's why the 3DS launched at $250 - because they knew people would buy it at that price despite everything else.  And for as much as people like to say that it kicked off with slow sales, they were certainly -sales- and I have to suggest that had the Vita not been launched at $250, the price would have stayed constant for a while longer.  That they launched it 'at a premium' (using other companies talk) and essentially bragged about it is something that would incriminate most other companies, but again, it's Nintendo and everyone can afford to be level-headed with them, whatever.

What bothers me about the whole situation when I initially skimmed it is that Nintendo is basically saying "Hey, we don't know which game to put minimal effort into and sell for max profits, but one of them is gonna happen soonish" which is something that would get Sony and/or Microsoft verbally reamed all over the internet.  It's rather annoying that Nintendo gets away with it simply because we're all supposed to really like everything Nintendo and first party there.  After reading about the same situation elsewhere, however, I do have to admit that a third option is present:  something new-ish involving LttP, as in something (most likely a sequel) that involves A Link to the Past, but isn't simply a copy and paste 3DS playable version with bells and whistles.  With these three options on the table, I can forgive two of them being remakes for the simple fact that the third is -not-, even if it is the least-likely outcome, with Majora's Mask 3D being the most likely.  Were I a betting man, I would bet on it, but I am simply a person who is bad at predictions, so there's that.

I sort of wish something a little more news-worthy had been out there, but, well, them's the breaks.  The Wii U is still big news since everything at E3 more or less fell flat (including the Wii U stuff at E3) and Nintendo always gets mentions for the tiniest things, so given that I don't have anything else I -can- talk about at the moment (for a reason), that's what I could figure on eeking out a post about.  I'd say I did what I set out to do, of course, and if nothing else, I have something to point out when I'm proven right or wrong about the whole Zelda 3DS thing.  As well as getting to be a little bitter about Nintendo since I simply don't see enough people applying realistic talk to them out there.  Not saying it doesn't get done, simply that I don't see it at the places that I frequent.  Still, these are some things that could amount to something in the future, so I figured it was worth bringing up and discussing now, if just to see how different or similar it all ends up to how I thought it might.

Second Thoughts - 3DS

Now, I know I said I really, really wanted this 3DS, even going so far as to say I would "gladly pay full asking price" to get it and, well, that opportunity materialized in what I don't think is necessarily a limited time offer, which has brought me, obviously, to the point of 'put up or shut up'.  Unfortunately, I have to do the latter option here in the form of a lengthy post here (which is sort of funny) quite simply because A.) I really didn't expect it to come to America and B.) I just don't have the money.  I've pretty much got everything set aside for Christmas shopping and, whatever else will likely go towards my Vita purchase and assorted things involved with that come February.  I'll need a memory stick and Uncharted:  Golden Abyss at the very least, of course, which means I'll have to walk into the store with quite more than just the $200 pricetag (since I pre-ordered for $50.) which means that is $200 less I have to go spending on a 3DS, no matter how pretty t is.

And it is pretty, of course.  It is very pretty as I've said before and, upon thinking about it, it'll be pretty easily compatible with the Slide-Pad add-on since it, too, is black, though I imagine there might be conflicting finishes.  Basically what I'm saying is that it would be too bad to get this 3DS with plans for the future, even in the face of the obvious next 3DS with better battery and two-sticks native to the device, and if I could, I'd get right on that.  Of course, in time, if I find spare money kicking around (doubtful) and don't have anything else to buy (also doubtful) and I find one of these hanging around (seriously, this is nil chance) I do promise to snap it the hell up.  If just so I have something to play Rune Factory 4 on.

This kind of 'eventuality' feeling that I have with the 3DS is exactly why I'm pretty comfortable with getting around to the system since it's something that I don't have to jump on.  I'll get one eventually, as many of us will (which is why I think it's silly for all this knee-jerk from months passed) as there's simply not a reason against it.  It's a Nintendo handheld, it's going to have great 3rd Party games (specifically from people carrying on DS franchises at the very least, but there will be more) and will be, you know, the DS if just a little different because there's a 3 in front of it.  I can't honestly figure anyone with a DS out there is going "I'm never getting a 3DS", but rather "I'm waiting on the library of the 3DS to grow/second revision of the 3DS to come out before I buy one", which I imagine is the category I'm in.

At the same time, I am kind of looking forward to getting my 3DS now, if not even for the thought of the games, but just to see what the device is going to be like.  I'm pretty much in the complete dark on that, on purpose, so when people start talking about "Street Pass" and this and that with regards to the 3DS I just sort of shrug and tune out.  I already don't know what it means and finding out now won't do me a bit of good; especially if it stays in tradition with a lot of other Nintendo offerings and is on series of time limits that will have long-passed by the time I get one.  I only say this, of course, since I've heard tell of people getting a few things, additions and the like from StreetPass, which instantly puts my mind into that cynical area.  I might be wrong, of course!  But if I am, I'll find out whenever I get around to owning one of these.

Goddamnit Nintendo, Let Me Buy This 3DS

Goddamnit Europe.  Goddamnit Nintendo of America.  One of you groups are responsible for quite a few issues lately and it's becoming clear that this isn't changing much anytime soon.  Just announced was the above pictured 3DS for Europe Only which is, quite obviously a Legend of Zelda:  Ocarina of Time 3D 3DS Bundle celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the franchise in a way much more spectacularly than an orchestral arrangement of some of the songs in the series.  And it is glorious.  So glorious that I would gladly pay the full asking price for it and finally own a 3DS which, as I said a while back, is inevitable at this point, but I was intending on waiting for the 3DS Lite or whatever it'll be called that'll have the Slide Pad integrated into it.  Because, well, you know that's going to happen.

Still, I might be able to wait for that version anyway, as it was only announced for Europe and, as noted above, Nintendo-related things that have only been announced for Europe tend to stay that way, at least for extended periods of time if not indefinitely.  Which, most of the time, I don't really care; as I've noted several times before I'm not really involved in Nintendo things this gen beyond the token effort; a Wii in the house and a DS on my shelf, plus a handful of games for either that have either been played or aren't going to get played until the Wii-U comes out.  Even then, who knows when I'll actually pick one up, since so much of it is still a general mystery as of yet, but that's not the point and I don't want to get derailed.

Honest, I don't like to Picture-whore my posts up, but really.  Really.  Just look at that, that is amazing.  Slide-pad be damned, I would really, honestly buy that in a heartbeat and I don't even care -too much- about the Zelda series.  (Link to the Past is the best one, everyone get off my goddamn lawn)  I know I just reiterated that point that I made literally two paragraphs ago, but it bears repeating; this is seriously one thing that I am honestly annoyed at, in that I won't even be able to -consider- purchasing it unless some miracle occurs and Nintendo of America gets their shit together.  I....am not exactly convinced or hopeful of that really, so I won't even hope for it.  Perhaps I will be surprised, but likely not.

I feel bad that I can't really say much beyond "Look at this, I want this", but really, can you blame me?  Hopefully we'll hear one way or another soon so that it won't be this constant feeling of the unknown but, again, I doubt it.  Just expect to be able to look enviously at our European Comrades in Gaming who didn't get completely shafted for once.  Glad you guys have one in the Win Column if nothing else.

Random Thoughts - Older Gaming vs. Newer Gaming

So, I picked up and started playing a rather older game a few days ago (I think I'll try to keep it anonymous for now in an attempt to make more conversation for the Weekly Wrap-Up) and managed to finish it off today and it left me fairly conflicted, really.  I like it, but goddamn, do I hate playing it.  And it really got me thinking of a lot of older games that I'd have problems playing today, not because they wouldn't be as good, theme-wise and such (what you're more apt to remember in a game as time goes by) and why that's sort of a thing.  And while I won't really touch on all the issues involved, I do want to touch on a few points that I thought through earlier.

I think the biggest difference between the Newer caste of games and older caste is that, while both attempt to be entertaining above all else (though not necessarily 'fun' in some cases), their approaches to this end vary greatly.  In my opinion, older games tried to sell you their entertainment value through their concept, outside lore (manuals) and charm foremost, which honestly worked for a lot of them.  The more notable example that comes to mind being Mario in Super Mario Bros.  About all there is to it is concept; a plumber (which you wouldn't be able to tell on looks alone) in this weird, trippy world who runs from left to right, eating mushrooms, stomping things and saving a princess.  In the gameplay front, you have running, jumping and shooting fireballs sometimes.  It is, nearly by definition, barebones.

This is by no means me saying that old games are bad because they were often as shallow as a puddle; far from it.  Just that there's no subtle nuances in gameplay, little evolving mechanics and the like in general, leaving your game to sink or swim on whether it's charming and/or entertaining in concept and delivery.  Obviously much of this is from technical limitations, but that's not an excuse, just a general fact of it all.

Of course the problem with issuing broad statements like the one above (aside from generally coming off as a know-it-all which is obviously not my intent) is that there's always ways that the statement is just not true.  The first few Legend of Zelda games being notable exceptions to the "Few evolving mechanics" statement, in that they're -mostly- about evolving mechanics.  Getting new items, new weapons, stronger versions of what you've got already is the name of the game, while also retaining somewhat of the "go for charm and concept" theory I'm placing to Mario and most of the other games from my youth. 

Whereas most older games seem to put concept at the forefront, Newer games tend to focus more on something of a more cinematic feel, trying to ensure that you're entertained constantly.  The setpiece-to-setpiece design of some games is evidence of this, and what some will complain about as games nowaday being "too easy" is further showing of this.  Which, I won't say games are 'too easy' nowadays, just that they are easier for all the right reasons.

Older games, as technically constrained as they were, had to take short-cuts here and there to pad up the difficulty and, at times, the length of the game.  Things that were acceptable back then in terms of methods and amounts of damage the character is able to take, ways the character could die or otherwise fail, and the consequences of death/failure are far different now, again in my opinion for the better.  But that just speaks more to my theory on newer games focusing more on the presentation; being able to take more damage, nearly no OHKs, and ways to make the consequences for death a little less oppressive to progress.

I think it's also shown off in general design in newer games, the concern for presentation, I mean, through gameplay design and the faith developers put in what they create.  This, of course, refers mostly to Open-world games where you're left with the option to make your own Point A and Point B in most circumstances, as there's enough variance and nuance to the existing gameplay to make it possible to do what the developers want you to do without putting the path directly before you.  After playing something of an older platformer and comparing it in my head to newer games with platforming elements (inFamous, Assassin's Creed) the difference is really clear, yet hard to place, to piece out, really.

In the older game I played, every level/area was set up directly as a "go here to go there to go there" type of thing, which clearly beat into my head that yes, I was indeed playing a platformer game where you platformed because it was a platformer.  Point A was clearly defined and the path was as well, so eventually Point B was where you got, the challenge was just ensuring you got to Point B.  Whereas in newer games that have platforming elements, the challenge usually lies in picking your course to get to wherever your Point B is. 

Taking inFamous for an example, say I were to need to get up to the top of a building while being on a shorter building.  If we say that I've got my movement abilities maxed, that gives me quite a few options.  The most linear being, of course, jumping down to street level, running towards the building I need to get up and straight up jumping/climbing it.  Or, depending on the scenery, I could jump up a few other things, grind a neighboring rail/wire towards the building and jump/glide to it.  Or I could just get to a similarly high rooftop and jump from rooftop to rooftop to get there.  Just as long as there is a Point B, there are various ways to get to it.  It's because the gameplay mechanics are so much more advanced that there doesn't need to be a defined route for most of what you need.

Of course, the downside in preferring presentation to crafting this sort of vague, yet charming world/concept is that sometimes you simply can't express what you want, and/or you can't make it entertaining enough.  Most modern shooters that some people would refer to as "Cut-and-paste shooters" or "Bald Space Marine Shooter #1412" suffer from this in that they're so focused on trying (and oftentimes failing) to make this gameplay that has been widely accepted without thinking out the concept well or executing it well enough.  What you end up with is something very shallow and bland, with the dissociation from one element to the other showing as plain as day.  Final Fantasy as a series (more notably the later installments) could definitely be accused of this (not saying one way or another if it's true or not, as that's for another time, of course and I still haven't played XIII) since it's basically the poster-child for my "Presentation is key" theory, focusing rather intensely on graphics and the like, while some would argue the game aspect of it suffers for it.

Overall, I'm not praising one school of thought or damning the other, even if it seems like I might be, as obviously there's a place for both ways of thinking, considering that some older games still are great, while some newer games are as well, for their own reasons.  I was merely considering the differences (in what I've observed/inferred) between old and new game design earlier and thought it might be an interesting article to write up.  Hopefully I don't come off as too preachy or condescending or the like, and presented my views on the pros and cons of what I think both schools of thought were in a clear way even if I'm not right on either count. 

Since, I mean, it's just, like, my opinion maaan.