Arcticflame said:
The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.
Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.
E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.
The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging.
Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.
No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.
Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.