Neverhoodian said:
Basically, any FPS that has all of the following is often described as "generic,"
I already pointed out my thoughts on the specifics of "generic". The thing is,
this isn't new
Take Wolfenstein 3D as an exmaple, it provided a template that looks a little something like this:
1) The game treats health as a collectible resource
2) The PC can carry every weapon in the game simultaneously without effort
3) Enemies absorb arbitrary amounts of damage before they die
4) The levels are constructed as a maze
5) Keys may be required to progress
Now, consider the following list of games that takes us all the way up to 2001 (from 1992).
Doom (Technical upgrades from wolfenstein, introduced area of effect weapons and projectiles with travel time. Introduced rudimentary multiplayer)
Marathon (Similar to doom in terms of advancements, minus multiplayer)
Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold (Similar to Doom)
Rise of the Triad (Similar to Doom. Introduced more vertical elements to the game)
Quake (Popular push to 3D from the previous sprite based technology. Community efforts (quakeworld, gamespy) made the game a multiplayer experience for the masses)
Duke Nukem 3D (Still similar to Doom. Level construction attempts to create a more plausible setting but still inevitably a maze)
Quake 2 (Most similar to Quake. A retread with refinements. Multiplayer became a focus)
Unreal: (Enormous technical advancements from previous games. First wildly popular game where the player traveled logically between areas. Strong move towards narrative adaptation)
Half-Life (Similar to Unreal. Ultimately more popular).
Counterstrike (Released as a beta mod for Half-Life. Runaway success of the game was the mark of the transition to many of the modern things pointed out above).
Halo (The game's enormous popularity was sufficient to generate most of the remaining modern ideas you point out).
While there were plenty of FPS games produced during this period that did not strictly follow the Wolfenstein model (Descent for example), there are still dozens of lesser known games that I could place on that list. These games were made because they sold well. It took people with nothing to lose (the mod team that made Counter-Strike) to break from the cycle and a major commercial release to set the new standard.
The thing is, when you define games strictly by such things, it is easy to assert that the games were identical. While Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold certainly feels exactly like a Doom clone (which is not an entirely reasonable designation given that it was released mere months after Doom), few would assert that Unreal was exactly like Wolfenstein even if they shared a list of common traits.
It is those finer details that distinguish games. Sure, plenty of games on the market
right now are "Modern Warfare" in all but name but would one really say that Halo: Reach is so generic because it shares common traits with such things?
