FPS games aren't about features, they are about experience and adrenaline.
The Call of Duty series, with its detailed script-driven action (which makes the AI appear much more intelligent than it actually is), has always provided the kind of thrill FPS gamers are looking for... hence its high regard.
Most other shooters stay away from the super-constrained linear gameplay of CoD, and let their AI attempt to provide an exciting experience onces its spawned into the world, via a much simpler scripting mechanism. This isn't to say that most shooters aren't totally linear, from a high-level standpoint, but rather that the CoD designers are really clever about setting up situations where you can watch a scripted AI, or group of AIs, friendly or enemy, do something exciting, whereas other games tend to let their AI run on a longer leash, and it kind of reduces the game to a somewhat less-than-cinematic experience. The Half-Life series is successful, and highly regarded, for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with technical prowess, although that's certainly what people like to talk about.
That being said, the original KZ was better than most shooters at providing good situational encounters. I have no doubt that it'll be good, in that regard -- destructable environs, etc... are totally meaningless in the end.
"Generic" in FPS terms, means the encounters aren't exciting... that they are bland, usually due to repetition, lack of scripting, bad game balancing, or just plain bad AI. Quake 4... generic. DOOM 3... generic. Haze... generic. Jericho, The Darkness, etc. (all those shooters one the HD consoles you can easily forget about).. generic. Halo series... generic (great multiplayer though).
HL2... good. CoD series... good. KZ... good. Gears... okay. R6V1,2... okay. GRAW1,2 good, etc., etc. I think KZ2 will be decent.
