Of course not, since HL2 isn't fun to play to begin with
I'm honestly not sure how this is supposed to help your initial statement. You were claiming that HL2's originality isn't visible because everyone copied it. Yet Doom's is still visible because its basics and premise are so awesome and the original is still fun to play no matter how much you copy them? How does this count as a plus for HL2? Your last post reads like "Doom was so good it remains good no matter how many inferior copies happen, but HL2's is only good until someone else does it better", which is completely not what you were saying earlier.
If one copies Doom, they usually reskin it, add some new weapons, enemies and levels. The Doom influence is often directly visible. But (almost) each and every clone is fun to play, because while the good ol' gameplay stays essentially the same, Doom clones and 90's DOS shooters largely depended on the level design to feel fresh. Which is why we have a plethora of map pack WADs. If the gameplay is the weapon, then the body is the level design. If you are too weak to wield a weapon properly, then your Sword Of Daemonic Destruction can't live up to its fullest potential. If the level design is just repetitive linear corridors, then it doesn't matter how good your gameplay is, you WILL get bored.
The majority of modern AAA shooters, on the other hand, indirectly include elements from Half-Life 2, usually being "immersive storytelling" which nowadays means "no cutscenes, but you gotta stand here listening to this guy rambling about something". I don't even have to name any examples for you to know what I mean. Even the physics, revolutionary at the time, are now so commonplace, that it sometimes just feels forced in HL2 (especially the Hovercraft chapter, that chapter was basically "look at our awesome physics engine" when they constantly pause the hovercraft pursuit in favour of physics puzzles).
Part of the reason why HL2 got so popular is because it did alot of cool things
at the time. When you have played alot modern games and go back to HL2, it feels incredibly barebones in comparison. Even HL1 would feel more refreshing to a modern gamer, partly because its level design is simply more engaging than HL2. Sure, HL2 had great levels like Ravenholm and the Coastal drive, but it was also one of the first game to start the "conveniently placed explosive red barrels" fad. Don't think, just shoot the red barrels and you know someone will die. Less thought is put into what weapon you should equip, which enemy to focus on, and where to move next, but instead you blow up as many enemies as possible by shooting explosive barrels that just happen to be behind the enemy. It's lazy level design. Even Doom has explosive barrels, but not to the extent of HL2. Level design can carry even the oldest games, but nowadays level design means
, so we're left with linear cinematic experiences which the casual forgets about after a year, only to be featured again in the Doritos 'n Mountain Dew GOTY Awards.
Doom stands the test of time due to its near-flawless game design and level design. HL2 did alot of cool things, but since all those cool things don't look so cool today because everyone already did them, you are left with a generic FPS who is only saved from total mediocrity by the Gravity Gun, storytelling (when it doesn't put you in unskippable cutscene segments), sound design, and art/enviroment design. All of which aren't necessarily aspects of a game that add replay value.