I've seen two types of negative reviews - those who like what Odyssey promises but hate how it's delivered (the broken state of Odyssey), and those who hate what Odyssey promises. I'm in the first group, so I can be appeased over time. People in the second group hopefully recognize that Odyssey isn't for them and will move on. The problem I have with people in the second group being "hysterical" is that we've known since Alpha what Odyssey was going to be, so anyone who bought it afterwards and is surprised must not have done their homework.
That argument might have legs if it had not been undercut by FDEV themselves claiming that the build was actually much further along than it was. That was a lie. People bought the game based on hearing things like that, which I'm pretty sure, combined with the trailer claiming "in game footage" showing realistic craggy cliffs, blue skies, beautiful lighting effects, all labelled as, "in-game footage" is probably bordering on deceptive advertising.
I think a lot of what is broken in ODYSSEY can be fixed - the absolutely abysmal UI, the performance issues (which FDEV is still trying to pass off as some sort of puzzling bug despite there being clear evidence they simply aren't culling their pipeline), the bad AI, the bad ragdoll physics, the bullet-sponge NPCs, the weird lighting, the strange graphical artefacts, and so on).
My concern is that the planetary tech is clearly a MASSIVE step backward and doesn't appear capable of producing the realistic landscapes we had in HORIZONS - the worlds are bland, colourless, featureless, and flat with craggy outcrops replaced with rounded bumps and look like something from 2005. I don't see this being fixed at all, and that means the game has lost a core piece of functionality and is entirely ruined for explorers, like me, who like to go out into the black and look for interesting planets.