I'm not exactly concerned about the input a game requires, but rather how a game responds and in some cases adapts to a player. I'll attempt an example. Bare with me as this is not entirely thought out. A traditional FPS and a traditional RTS need no explanation of how the game works. A log of one's experiences would be very interesting and certainly bring more to the table than which buttons do what. A log of one's experiences in a hybrid multilayer FPS-RTS would also be great. I..e, the feeling of self importance one might feel when being given am order by a strong commander to attack the opponent's supply line. The feeling of achievement from contributing to an overarching plan after accomplishing this goal and knowing that you have affected the course of battle. However, without discussing, not the buttons or input, but how the game responds to what the players want to achieve in a fundamentally different game play environment would be useful information. As games attempt (I hope) to innovate gaming mechanics (not input methods) and game play parameters, I think that games journalism needs to be capable of discussing it. If gamers immerse themselves in a game despite the poor mechanics or lack of innovation, I think it is possible that experience based games journalism could perpetuate the current standard model of games since it is fun to blow up the opponents.

Not sure if that really covers my thoughts in depth, however it is a start. I really like an experience based approach. It sounds right to me. But to sum up my point, only focusing on the experience (of the fictional game world) is not capable of critiquing game play. Of course, journalists my combine the two. Who knows. Do you still completely disagree since I'm not talking about input?