Proving that the word “wank” is guaranteed to get you a lot of attention, UK Resistance’s “seven-point manifesto” on why the New Games Journalism sucks is getting linked from all over the place. The manifesto isn’t a manifesto as much as it is knee-jerk pissiness, and can be safely skipped. The examples of “Old Games Journalism” that they list, however, make an interesting contrast to the list of “unmissable examples” of NGJ that the Guardian Gamesblog recently compiled.

Setting up an opposition between the everyday game reviews that UK Resistance defends and the more reflective pieces that the Guardian promotes is an apples/oranges affair; the only thing the two types of writing have in common are that they both concern video games. The great thing about games, though, is that they afford a wide range of readings. Bashing people for trying to be expressive and creative when writing about games is basically saying that they should be strictly viewed as commercial product rather than as cultural artifacts.

The reality is that like everything else we run into these days, they’re both, and there’s plenty of room in the world — and in the press — for writing about games from both perspectives. If some writers’ vision of games journalism involves being an Ebert-like tastemaker while others dream of Houghton Mifflin publishing a Best American Games Writing series, well, I don’t see why we can’t have both.

The difference between the Old and New Games Journalisms, for me at least, boils down to this: one tries to answer the question, “is this game any good?” The other tries to answer the question, “why should you care?”