Simon Parkin writes for the New Yorker, and I take
@APZonerunner's word that he's one of the best game writers around. The preview was quite strange in its structure and criticisms (see: board drama). We basically had to piece together SE and Parkin's responses at social media to piece together what actually he played.
I wonder if, in spite of Parkin and EDGE's best efforts, the preview ended up needing to be pushed out the door at the last minute without being able to edit it to their usual standards. I mean, even setting aside the structure and the confusion its criticisms caused (which I suspect came in large part from people discussing the article without actually having read it), there were some typographical ("Sindy," "Statis") and fact-checking errors (listing the as-yet-unannounced PC version) that I doubt would have been left as-is with proper revision.
With that said, now that you've brought up Parkin's connection to the New Yorker, I can
really see where the style for this preview might have come from. It's got the same sort of make-a-narrative-out-of-it impulse that I tend to associate with the New Yorker, at the very least.
What I gathered was he played 40 hours of a preview build with (large chunks of?) cut content, which could explain some of the story disconnect. And his description of the back half of the game invoked FFXIII PTSD in the fandom, but buried in the text was the word "traditional". But -- he also really liked the game! If this had been a review, I would have pegged it as an 8/10 - the same score Edge gave Witcher 3.
I got the same feeling as you with regards to the score -- there seemed to be a bit more criticism than I'd expect from a 9, but the overall impression was positive, and there's no way the preview text would support a 7 on the low end when the bits I read of EDGE's 6/10 review for FFX completely excoriated that game.