Killzone, in my opinion, is just as unique as any of the other major shooters, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.
1. Halo is a fast paced space shooter that relies on exaggerated jumping mechanics, requires very fast reaction times, and features plasma/ thermal-energy projectile weapons.
2. Call of Duty is also a fast paced shooter, but is very realistic in regard to its setting and weapons (i.e. ordinary bullet-firing weapons/ virtual models of actual weapons).
3. Battlefield is a realistically paced shooter, also with a realistic setting and realistic weapons, but it's set apart from other shooters by its large maps and 64 player count.
Killzone is unlike any of these games. So, why do people always call it generic? It's quite sluggish compared to them all. Its weapons are unlike those in Halo in that even though they're futuristic, they mainly rely on bullets instead of plasma/ thermal-energy, and they're also unlike those in Call of Duty in that even though they mainly fire bullets, their designs are unlike modern weaponry. It's unlike Battlefield for the same reasons it's unlike Call of Duty.
So, once again, what's up with the 'generic' argument?