Last week we announced our new weekly "feature," something we're calling "Comment of the Week." The idea: encourage legitimate, entertaining discussion about videogaming news, reviews, previews, and more.
Not that you guys don't already do that, but we wanted to spotlight and reward it. Our commenter of the week -- chosen after a discussion between the Destructoid staff -- will win a mystery prize, to be determined weekly.
To kick it off this week, we're giving the winner a handful of goodies: codes redeemable for Madballs: Babo Invasion and Worms 2: Armageddon for Xbox LIVE Arcade, as well as a physical copy of the recently released BioShock/Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion bundle for the Xbox 360. (We sure hope the winner has an Xbox 360!)
Hit the jump to find out who took it home this week, and why.
Winner:
Magnalon, from the comments of our Battlefield 1943 review

Why we chose it:
Sure, this is a comment that kind of calls us out on not one, but two of our reviews. But it's a legitimate and important question, one that sparked discussion in the comments, as well as with the staff.
Truth is, Castle Crashers (like Battlefield 1943) did suffer from a number of networking issues. Unlike Battlefield, some of Castle Crashers' issues were far worse for many players, including corrupted saves that cause many to lose progress. However, while our reviewers seemed to dock points from the overall Battlefield 1943 experience, Castle Crashers was seemingly given a free pass.
When reviewing titles, our reviewers explore each of the game's modes to the best of his or her ability, including online play where applicable. The reviewer can obviously only evaluate what was experienced.
Many reviewers (with Destructoid or otherwise) sometimes play and evaluate a game online on a network that's not what consumers will be playing on when the game hits retail or online services. Think for a second about the difference between 400 people playing Battlefield 1943 online versus the 400,000 people who purchased the game on Xbox LIVE on day one.
Which brings up Magnalon's interesting question: Is it worth delaying a review to see how a game plays online? For us, it's something we take on a case-by-case basis. Many titles we review aren't played on retail consoles, and sometimes we're not given the opportunity to play an online game in a real-world setting.
Would you like to have a review go up before or as a game hits shelves/online so that you can use that info to inform your day-and-date purchase decision? Or would you rather wait a few days (or maybe longer), as we hold off to test the game in a "real-world" setting?
---
"Comments of the Week" are chosen from comments made Friday through Thursday. They can "LOL" funny or thought-provoking. Whatever you do, try not to suck.
BIAS
Also, kermit.
I've always believed in playing it where it lies. If something is busted at the time of review, a review should most definitely take that into account and work it into the evaluation. Considering that Castle Crashers still exists competently as a single player experience, I can accept broken network play as a minor knock.
If Left 4 Dead had completely busted multiplayer, though, it would need to be eviscerated in reviews, since MP is central to the experience.
P.D. that's a weird-ass opening pic.
CAN'T READ MY
YOU CAN'T READ
MY KERMIT FACE
Not sure about when i'd prefer the reviews, more likely as it hits shevles, as a frequent visitor to DTOID, i'd be very likely to pick up on an issues as they become popular, and could influence my decision on whether to pick up a game (as long as its not a day 1 pickup, because in that case any issues wouldn't bother me regardless)
very big of you guys, good job
I just wanted to thank Brad for doing a fine job of answering this question for me. It's not every day that you get to engage in a polite discourse with the author of an article on a popular website. You'd be hard pressed to find staff who actually care enough about you to answer your fan questions anywhere else. It's a large reason why Destructoid is ahead of the curve!
Show us second and third place too next time :P
In answer to your question regarding when to sign off on reviews, I think it depends on the title really. If players are likely to spend a lot of time online I'd say it is crucial to see how the game performs in the real world. If the online play isn't the primary reason for people playing it doesn't matter so much. Who cares if the online is broken when you'll play it for 10 minutes then go back to Halo/Call of Duty?
Games should be reviewed according to how they will perform when someone gets it home and pops it in their system otherwise what's the point? Furthermore, any talk of a fixes from the developer should be ignored (I notice a patch was talked about in the Castle Crashers review which, in reality, took months to arrive).
I think Multiplayer heavy games should be the ones that get put off so you can get a real world feel for it.
If I was interested in this game, coming in as a consumer, I don't want to be put off a game because it's having trouble on the reviewer's side, because ai can end up thinking that it's going to happen to me and I wouldn't buy it until it's fixed. In the worst case scenario, forget that I was going to buy it because it was plagued with problems for a day or two.
this comment saying you suck for having no modesty is better
oh and congrats magnalon, i think that's the only comment you've posted this week that didn't make me wince.
Ack! I try to speak my mind, but I didn't mean to offend, or trouble you psychologically! :D
Oh, and one thing about the Castle Crashers review. At the time of the review, I believe all of the reviewers said that they were aware of the problems but hadn't experienced them themselves.
I can't fault someone for giving a good review to a game that they've had no technical problems with, even if others are feeling the burn.
In such cases, I think it would be nice to see some sort of bolded/italicized statement near the review score to alert potential buyers of potential pitfalls.
Take Burnout Paradise, for example. Since Nick Chester's review, there have been numerous updates to the title. Destructoid has posted about them regularly, but shouldn't some of this information and the original review be consolidated? Trophies have been introduced to the PS3 version of the game. The free software update that accompanied the releases of the Ultimate Box and Party Pack added the option to restart events, fundamentally altering the structure of the game for players who choose to take advantage of it. Nick's review was an accurate and fair appraisal in February 2008, but arguably it is no longer enough to enable a gamer to make an informed decision as to whether or not she should buy the game.
Criterion's approach with Burnout Paradise is perhaps an extreme example, but I can't help but think that it is a model more developers will strive to emulate as the market forDLC grows. Shouldn't the reviews produced by games blogs such as Destructoid also adapt to reflect this? Perhaps then there wouldn't be so much controversy surrounding reviews for games like Battlefield 1943, either. The need for reviews to be both timely and representative of "real-world" experience could surely be satisfied if later updates to reviews were to become an acceptable option.
Why not go back and give a second review score now that the game is fully working?
The game is a great experience for the money, and now that the online issues are sorted it deserves a high score.
Like the above post, I feel that a game's quality changes over time and reviews should be updated to reflect that in certain cases. Battlefield is such a case in my opinion.
I like this new feature. Keep up the great work, guys!
Barbara Bui Handbags
Chloe Handbags
Dior Handbags
Gucci Handbags
Hermes Handbags
Wholesale Handbags
Jimmy Choo Handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Miu Miu Handbags
Mulberry Handbags
Replica Handbags
Prada Handbags
Valentino Handbags
Versace Handbags
YSL Handbags
Discount Handbags
Handbag Collection
Balenciaga Motor Handbags
Chloe Leather Handbags
Gucci Boston
Knockoff Handbags
Miu Miu Bow
Miu Miu Coffer
Mulberry Bayswater
Prada Fairy
Louis Vuitton 2009 Collection
Louis Vuitton 2009 New Arrival
Louis Vuitton Antigua Collection
Louis Vuitton Damier Azur
Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier Graphite
Louis Vuitton Epi Leather
Louis Vuitton Graffiti
Louis Vuitton Leather Handbag
Louis Vuitton Mahina
Louis Vuitton Men Bag
Louis Vuitton Monogram
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas
Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim
Louis Vuitton Monogram Dentelle
Louis Vuitton Monogram Glace
Louis Vuitton Monogram Jokes
Louis Vuitton Monogram Leather
Louis Vuitton Monogram Leopard
Louis Vuitton Monogram Mini Lin
Louis Vuitton Monogram Miroir
Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolor
Louis Vuitton Monogram Perforation
Louis Vuitton Monogram Suede
Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis
Louis Vuitton Nomade
Louis Vuitton Seasonal Collection
Louis Vuitton Snakeskin Leather
Louis Vuitton Suhali Leather
Louis Vuitton Taiga Leather
Louis Vuitton Wallet