The lights are on
I didn't find this review very helpful; the author seemed to be complaining that you had to spend money to really play the game, but he didn't go into any detail to explain how much money would be required to get the most out of the game or to get something more than the bare-bones free-to-play experience.
I don't like the free-to-play concept, but all but the densest dullards know that a free-to-play game is probably going to require spending some money in order to get the most out of the experience. (I personally want to pay the creator something for their time and effort.) It doesn't sound like the reviewer spent any money within the game, so it hardly seems like he got the full experience. Maybe GI's policy is to review free-to-play games as they are without any microtransactions, but this doesn't seem very helpful for the consumer. I think something like, "plan to spend $10/$15/$20 to get the full experience," or "even if you spend __ in microtransactions, you may be disappointed" would have been more helpful.
I also don't understand why a game site reviews this game with the standards of AAA video games, or even a time-waster like this.
Why did you just make a review just to complain about the official review? This isn't a comments section.
Aside from that, many free to play games have hooks that aren't nearly as intrusive. Dota 2 for example. If your game is just trying to get to another set of several hour long timers, then that isn't good.
I find this game great but lacking one quality that isn't too big. The quality would be the ability to have multi buildings or structures upgrading at once. The time taking parts are no problem. I am enjoying the game and not feeling that I am obliged to spending money.