I think the game reviewing media has been pretty uneven in their handling of this game. I believe many of them are treating it (probably due to the subject matter/associations) as some sort of concept piece, instead of as a FPS. Personally I think some of the mechanics in this game are quite good - but it's obviously not a high concept game, despite it's association with Lewis Carrol. It's also obviously not a serious puzzle game either, which is why I was surprised at the lack of content in the review regarding the combat system - although I do commend Steve on at least mentioning the platforming, even if he didn't find it fun.
Also I wonder if the superior visuals and environments aren't actually causing the game to get a negative mean score than it really deserves. For example, instead of saying - this is an average, servicable shooter/patformer that looks great (++), it becomes: this game looks great, but is only an average shooter/platformer (--)
Personally - I think this game is better than the first one in pretty much every way. It would be fair of any reviewer to say, "If you enjoyed the first game, you'll like this one even more." But oddly enough, very few reviewers are mentioning the first game at all, especially by ware of comparison - which I find to be a huge oversight that sequels don't usually get.