I just read the review. While there is no excuse for the lack of patience and thoroughness shown in respect to the authors review of the game, let alone the comments made about Mr. Smart himself, I think we should not lose sight of context here; In trying to see things from his perspective of what is, and what is not, a good game, it's not that hard to understand why some of what was written was written.
In comparison to games out there now, the Battlecruiser series really stand out in alot of ways; and since there isn't really anything similar yet, it's inevitable that reviewers are going to judge members of the aforementioned based on the games that are out there now. It's inevitable that reviewers are going to compare members of the aforementioned to games that are out there now.
Remember back when DOOM came out? How kick-ass it looked? It was because it was being compared to other games of that era. The quality was relative. There is no cosmic force that defines something as being "good" or "bad".
The author in question no doubt reviews, and has reviewed, many games. When viewed from the perspective of a reviewer used to games tailored for the five-second attention span, as most these days seem to be, it's not hard to see why this game has percipitated such an influx of negative reviews.