-7.9/10? A bit harsh to give out a negative number...

Has quite a few factual errors.  Yes, what a surprise.

I find it interesting that the review made no mention of the wildlands to conquer in the game. It really seems like they played maybe 50 turns of the game and quit, and wrote a review. I know that there is a lot more depth to be had in the game at later turns, but it is what it is and it very well could be that the game didn't grasp the reviewer.

I kind of got this feeling too, but there has also been a couple of other reviews I felt the same way about. 7.9 is a fair score, and I tend to agree. I would rate it, in current state, at 8 - 8.5

Tactical combat isn't advanced enough?  BS.  You can:

• Knock opponents back (and to the ground) with Titan's Breath
• Break through ZOC using Thunderstrike
• Make enemy units hit each other!  Hilarious!
• Debuff the whole enemy army with Mass Curse/Wither
• Inflict damage over time effects
• Berserk for extra damage but take a point of damage each turn
• Take control of enemy units

And that's just a few notable things off the top of my head.

Obviously whoever reviewed the game played it for like an hour and didn't use any of the really cool spells, and should be fired for incompetence.

I also keep seeing something on "Diplomacy is overly simplicated." 

particular quite a few reviewer saying that AI is too arrogant and most of the time, brute force is the only ways to solve conflicts..

Another common one i read is on immersion

Rock Paper and Shotgun (WOT series)  also talk on this, but their major complain is on FE's immersion including lengthy dialogues which need to get into them otherwise  dragging.

IGN also gave MoO3 a 9.2.  Their credibility in reviewing 4X games is lacking.

Seriously, now: you don't like a specific review they had in 2003--that's nine years ago--so that kills their credibility?  What do you do if an infant pukes on you, wait for him or her to grow up so you can foreclose on their home mortgage, and put nails in their tires?