If a game has regenerative health it's a MW clone, if it has a health bar it's a clone of a game with a healthbar, surely there are finite ways you can represent getting shot. It seems there is a culture nowadays to complain about anything which is an adaptation of something else - which is everything.
Were we not to do this, we would scrabble about trying to think of completely new and often hopeless gameplay mechanics, which the grumbly gamer would then complain about instead, saying it should be more like COD. Its the circle of life. Can't we just enjoy the games for what they are, gradually improving the genre as we build upon the strengths of other games?
Look back at a game like The World is Not Enough for the PS1, the controls are functional but incredibly wooden by today's standards. Games like the original halo, and the early call of dutys were built on those mechanics, allowing a finer and manipulation of the character within the game. Case in point, using R1/RT to fire rather than, of all things 'X' which was hopeless. Now, we have a choice. Should we keep our control schemes similar to call of duty, which work excellently, or should we return to the old wooden ones of yore, in order to ensure we do not "clone" a more recent development?