This is tricky.
The article explicitly says "Spectrum 48K".
Also the reviewer seem to believe it's the Spectrum version. When writing about the sequel for a popular game from the same platform, it's more natural to assume most readers were already familiar with the original game. Even if that's not the case, it still sounds much better than assuming player's ignorance by default. Therefore a reviewer would most probably write something like "Blue Max 2001 is the sequel to the popular and successful Blue Max". Instead, the reviewer assumed the opposite, implicitly meaning something similar to "Blue Max 2001 is the sequel to Blue Max, a title you probably never heard of, but it's a popular and successful title that any C64 would know".
However Blue Max 2001 was never released for the Spectrum. So how can we explain it?
Blue Max for C64 was released in 1983. Both Blue Max 2001 for C64, and Blue Max for Spectrum, were released about the same time in 1984. Perhaps the magazine intended to write about the Spectrum version but didn't receive it on time, so they assumed it would be nearly identical to the new C64 version and wrote accordingly. Perhaps they even published the low quality screenshot on purpose (it's much worse than other screenshots from the same issue) so it's not possible to distinguish the platform.
Or perhaps the magazine simply wrote "Spectrum 48K" by mistake. Based on this wrong information, the reviewer tried to write accordingly, without ever playing the game. It would explain the evaluation "the game is fine but not a classic", it's the kind of generic sentence someone says when pretending to know a game they don't...
Or perhaps I'm overthinking it
Let's see
