New or Hard?

The topic of New Games Journalism finds me torn between both factions. I'm an English major, and a Journalism minor. I write stories for the sake of entertainment, love reading well-written pieces, but I've also been working on the campus newspaper for around two years now and find a necessity for hard, journalistic coverage of video games, however soft the topic itself might be.

Do I think someone writing a literary critique or an experiential analysis of a video game is too pretentious and heady of an undertaking for a topic such as video games? It really depends on the writer, but for the most part, I feel that it's not. People have been doing such things for books and movies, why should games be any different? Entertainment evokes experience, and the value of a piece might benefit from a person's chronicling of that experience. The article Always Black gives me a little insight into a code of honor that is unique to Jedi Knight II, and as such, I feel that's an important thing to be chronicled.

However, as detailed in Games Journalism needs Games Journalists, the industry needs a group of people who take it seriously enough to give us insight into the inner workings of the industry, to see why certain companies do well, to know why games are getting axed or pushed around. In short, Games Journalism needs people trained in the art of the inverted pyramid, lead-hunting, and interviewing as much as it needs those with a more artistic bent.

I'm torn partially because I wonder how I should write my next review. Should it be a harder, straight review, or should I go on the New Games Journalism side and come up with something more akin to a story?