In the wake of the reviews I've read and saw for Mirror's Edge and then compared to what I saw for a 'major franchise' such as Call Of Duty: World At War, this is my opinion after I read reviews.

I have been a major FPS fan since Wolfenstein 3D on the PC now at this point im 24 and the genre has been used in so many ways that finally (similar to Portal) we see something 'different' like Mirror's Edge appear and yet the major magazines give it a mediocre review score ranging as a 7.0 by GS and 7.2 by IGN respectively. I have to say that the standards for reviews have dropped considerably. When I saw the review for CoD: World At War, another typical CoD shooter that just reworks the same tried and true formula that CoD4 had already set and added a World War II variant of the same game, yet it is recieved a 9.2 by IGN, this was a huge red flag to me. I believe the reviewers are not being completely honest and are instead just reading the minds of gamers instead of what they really feel. When reviewers become subjective to complain that gamers like playing the same thing over and over and that's why nothing original has been released, it just seems to me they are feeding into the hype to keep video game sites and magazine readers interested in returning to their site because they know the game would sell regardless. Now I'm not saying the game therefore deserved a '9' or '10' but seriously this game should recieve more credit then what it is due.