I can't speak for everyone else but the the reason I thought the guy had no grounds to pass judgement on BLT is rather simple.
His main pillar upon which his whole attitude is based around is that for $60 we all should expect to get at least as much X as you get in Y. Y being Halo or COD because they are the Acme of the industry of course.
Does he take this same stance with regards to movies? I guess because the ticket price is the same, the only movies worth seeing are Titanic and Transformers or whatever hugely successful film you think works for the point that he thinks should be made. To him, ANYTHING that isn't AAA++ with 99% focus on team deathmatch with cool airstrikes and pseudo intellectual plot should only charge half price because its not what he likes or is popular with his 14yo kid.
I may have a bias for BLT, and hugely against Halo and COD etc., because I prefer shooting interesting npcs (humanoid or otherwise) with outlandish weaponry as opposed to pwning the same douchebags in every successive iteration of "couch soldier of fortune" that comes along.
The thing is, I'm not the only one that has this preference. People that like Borderlands aren't some fringe minority. It isn't developed on an indie budget. Its just as deserving of a SERIOUS critique as any other game in its or any other genre. Copping out and stating that it was fun, but not enough to warrant its price point is just fail reviewing.
Did your readers need to know that you consulted Wikipedia to learn the backstory? I think that you felt the desire to do so AT ALL says that you had an interest in the plot.
That he lampooned the multiplayer is pretty funny. What do you typically do in a COD multiplayer? Squad up and shoot people in a confined map, where only a handful of variables present themselves via each person's loadout and gear etc. Even then its not much of a change player to player and you have maybe at most 2 dozen maps, most of which you need to pay for as they choose to nickle and dime you for them. Typically they will just reuse old maps from earlier games in the series and call them legacy maps or whatever and still charge you.
Now, what do you do in Borderlands MP? You squad up and shoot things. Only you are shooting more than just nazis and zombie nazis and other players. You have access to more than 10 guns, and you have 5 different classes, possibly more. You have access to the entire world map, you have vehicles, you have practically unlimited numbers of guns/shields/grenades and class mods/relics/unlockable custom heads/skins/paint jobs etc.
You also get a game with a fucking personality, that on occasion is actually funny and has a plot that can't be summed up with "shoot those guys, then those guys, these guys betrayed you shoot them, everyone dies, no they didn't so shoot them. the end"
I'm not saying its a masterpiece, but its not a fucking Nascar game, "a fun diversion" like said asshat would prefer it to be judged as.
All games are by definition fun diversions.
Also, who in the fuck takes anything that someone writes for a NEWSPAPER seriously these days? Especially one with a track record of making up whatever the hell they feel like and calling it fact? Its about as silly as relying on a professional review of any media. As soon as money changes hands, its no longer an impartial review. There is always a narrative and an agenda, and if they divert too far from it they will no longer have said job.
Its why you typically see 7-8/10 for 99% of all reviews, or 3/5 in the case of G4.