This has been a debate between several friends and myself recently. I thought I'd seek some outside input here.

A sitcom is typically defined as a situational comedy, involving a set of characters in a somewhat repetitive environment, who exchange jokes and also endure humorous scenarios.

It is my opinion that Red versus Blue, while somewhat untraditional, certainly fits that description. It involves developed characters in a given environment (initially Blood Gulch, but expanded in later seasons to other locations in the Halo games). The dialog is almost constant humor and jokes, which, other than perhaps being somewhat more crude than a broadcast network sitcom, are otherwise fairly similar. The humorous scenarios are quite specific to their environment, but this is true of all sitcoms (for example, the humorous scenarios in "The Office" generally relate to the office environment).

While later seasons of the show involved more drama than the early seasons, this is actually quite typical of sitcoms. Most, as they age, begin to add some level of drama to prevent the show from becoming flat.

The two things that can be said to be rather different in Red versus Blue, as compared to other sitcoms, is first the often violent nature of their environment, and second the rather unusual manner of filming the show. The latter could hardly disqualify the show as a sitcom... It's simply artistic method. The former can be contrasted with shows like M*A*S*H*, which is often referred to as a sitcom, and yet is set in the Korean war, contains the theme and tension of a combat environment, and often involves violence or the aftermath of violence... Not unlike Red versus Blue.

It is my opinion that the popularity of Red versus Blue has been rooted in the fact it is a situation comedy set in an environment familiar to a young audience that they can relate to.

Opinions, critiques of my thinking? I may try to add a poll to this soon.