I've completed about three quarters of Halflife 2 now, and so I think I'm able to give my first impressions at this point.

It's a great game, I can't think of a single thing that's actually wrong with it. The graphics are immense, the AI is brilliant, the weapons are well balanaced, the storyline is well thought out and the enemies are varied and interesting. The gameplay and feel has even modernised and progressed from Halflife 1.

However, I can't help thinking it's not as good as most people around the world are making out. It's already received nominations for "Game of the Year", "Best FPS Action Game", "Best PC Game" and "Best New Technology". I agree that it should be winning awards and that perhaps it is the best game out this year, but theres something not quite perfect about it...

I think the problem is that, for me, HL1 was one continuous action/puzzle gameplay, it was well paced and fun all the time; Whereas in HL2, the action can get drawn out a little too long and some "chapter"s end up with me asking "when is this going to finish".

In HL1, there was clear progession right thoughtout the game. But in HL2, the sections of the game are clearly defined. I think back to the airboat chapter, to the coast road chapter, to the mines, etc, and I recall them clearly. The graphics and gameplay are ace in all these sections. But there isn't anything that really links all these consituent parts of the game.

In HL1, I got a sense of the geographical layout of the game, but with this sequel I find myself wondering where I am and what I'm aiming for. I've read interviews with Gabe Newell (co-founder of Valve, who produced HL2) and he says that alot fo the storyline was cut down because it was too overwhelming and boring. Perhaps they've taken it too far.

But still, as I said, it's an amazing game, exciting, adrenaline rushing and absolutely amazingly beautiful. Fairly high marks from me.