For a while, I held off on getting Ghostbusters. It had gotten middle of the road reviews, nobody had anything spectacular to say about it and nobody I knew played it (or was going to). All I kept hearing was the terms"generic shooter" being thrown around in each review.

But that got me thinking - what's wrong with that? It's become almost a reaction to think of "generic" as not up to par. You hear it every day. You'd rather eat Cheerios than "generic brand" Toasted Oats. Even if the game is a generic shooter, it doesn't mean it doesn't have polish. Sure, Ghostbusters had it's flaws. But you know what? I had fun. Something kept pulling me back to the game, something kept me saying "Just one more level". The game isn't terribly long or even original, but it certainly doesn't lack in entertainment.

It seems that every new game that comes out that doesn't have some sort of gimmick or "revolutionary" new feature gets labeled with "generic". But certain days, I don't have to have to think more than I have to. Perhaps I just want to go out and shoot some ghosts, or henchmen, or whatever it is in that game. I purchased Red Faction: Guerilla at the same time as Ghostbusters and I've put RF:G in the Xbox exactly twice. For a total of 20 minutes. I'm just not grabbed by the game although every review I've seen has made me think that it was the second coming of Jesus. Yes, blowing shit up and letting it crumble to the ground is fun, but it feels like I'm playing GTA on Mars.

There needs to be a little more care in labeling something as generic, as it can really hide a game that is fun.