I've played this game for a week only and while I don't exactly love it, it seems perfectly competent in many areas. I hate reviews bitching on GAF but that Eurogamer review seems to be based on about 2 nights of playing.
Yeah, that was one odd review. It seems like the reviewer just doesn't like the genre, or is just bitching because he's had a bad day or something. Baseless whining can constitute a review if the game is bad enough but I don't warrant that Warframe is such a game - it certainly needs work in some areas, notably in the user experience area and communicating/explaining stuff to the player, but I think the concept behind it works well enough.
What is most strange is that the game does have merits, but the review doesn't mention any of those. It's a gorgeous looking f2p game (on the pc at least, haven't tried the PS4 but it's difficult to see how they could've made it worse), and it does scratch the itch of just shooting a ton of bad dudes while having a small rpg and loot minigame on the side. What more could you expect from a title like this?
While disregarding the merits, the reviewer is instead piling on the game for being shallow and calling for "depth", but that is such a weird argument. Is more depth really something you want in this game? Does he want a ton of myriad mechanics and skill trees when the game is really just about a bunch of space ninjas shooting things. I disagree, I think adding too much depth into a title like this is a bad idea. The mod system works fine (yet the review doesn't even mention this) and allows for some degree of customization while staying out of your face.
Bottom line: it's certainly not such a bad game the lazy review is making it out to be.