Weird Opinion: Half-Life 1 is actually way better than Half-Life 2

First, some background: I first became aware of PC gaming in 2012 (15yrs after HL1, 7yrs after HL2). I played both games back-to-back and then later replayed both separately.

There's so much to be said about these two games, but I'll sum up my feelings in a few bullet points:

• HL1 is more thematically unified. It plays true to its Sci-Fi & Die Hard roots up to the point of campiness, but that fits rather well for a game whose protagonist is effectively a nerdy Doom Marine -- more a force-of-nature embodiment of survival than traditional hero.
• HL2, on the other hand, feels weighed-down by this legacy. It wants to tell a serious story about a charismatic freedom-fighter. That's an aesthetic which clashes terribly with HL1's mute, stoic survivalist.
• HL1 has a better core gameplay loop. It plays to its strengths: gunplay & level exploration. Exposition & puzzling are almost always delivered through these mediums wherever possible. Those few chapters which depart from this philosophy (On a Rail, Xen) are the weakest in the whole game as a result.
• HL2, by contrast, seems almost insecure. It only trusts the player to stick with the core gameplay-loop for a few chapters at most before pivoting into yet another gimmick -- almost all of which (barring the gravity gun sequence) feel painfully drawn out:
  • Water Hazard: Boating
  • Highway 17: Driving
  • Sandtraps: Physics "Puzzling" + "Platforming"
  • Nova Prospekt: Wave-Based Point Defense

What do you guys think? There's a lot worth unpacking here which I couldn't quite articulate. What are your takeaways?