Well, I think it's a poor review, in general. I already said the subspace part was good, but he didn't tackle the other single player modes, hit-or-miss as they are, and he didn't hit up on customization, roster size, character-depth, and the difference between this game and standard fighters, like MK, SF, KoF, and the several others. All he had to say about that was "BUTTON MASHER", despite all the different moves having varying effects, hit ranges, and strategies. His entire criticism of the multiplayer, that it all comes down to who mashes the buttons best, is negated by the second half of his review, where he says that if you play the single player, you become "That Guy," and are able to beat everyone. If the game's a button masher, playing for a measly ten hours through a story mode that actually requires an entirely different battle approach than a VS. battle shouldn't make you much better than your friends.
Essentially, he contradicts his entire basis of an argument, but doesn't like it anyways. It's really too bad, because it sounds like he played the game one night + ten hours of single player. While I'm one upset that the content addition between Melee and Brawl wasn't of the volume I'd appreciate, he's upset because if you play single player, you get too good, and if you play multiplayer it doesn't matter how good you are when a victor is decided. He doesn't discuss the trophies, the challenges, the poorly constructed "Brawl" battles with the Zako's or whatever they're called. He missed the entire event mode. He missed multiplayer options, and generally, his review didn't hit on much of the game's content. That's why I think it's a bad review. There are legitimate complaints about Brawl. "I just don't like it" is legitimate as well, but not from a "professional" reviewer. He walked into the review with a closed mind and left with the same outlook. Nothing Brawl could be would change that. That's what made it terrible.
Did I defend my point to whomever it was that was saying something earlier?