This was a fun episode, but does not sound like the start of a good lecture or panel. Scott’s conclusion is spot on, that all you need to do is say the most obvious or first example of a category or genre.
The thing that makes “40 Tabletop Games You Must Play” good is that, at a tabletop gaming convention, you could probably knock four or five of those off your list by the end of the weekend. And because the games aren’t based on technology, even old games are super accessible. You could even print them out and have a go. And each game will only take an hour to learn and play and get a hang of, except maybe DnD or other long form roleplaying game.
The tabletop list feels useful and attainable.
But expanding this out to include all games, video games and sports, makes it supremely un-useful. For example, playing tag won’t really help you understand all sport better.
To play Breath of the Wild is a good recommendation for anyone, but it’s going to cost $400 and 40 hours minimum. Tennis is equally inaccessible due to cost and specialised equipment.
Doom 2 sounds like a fun idea, but I typed “how to play Doom 2” into Google and the first result is wiki page that begins “Playing Doom under Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, or Windows 10 can be troublesome.”
My suggestion would be to make it a companion to the tabletop panel, but about video games. Keep it restricted to games that are easily emulated, free, cheap or, at a minimum, run on current hardware you expect people to own (like PC, Switch, Playstation or Xbone). And give people an estimate on how long they would have to play until they might fully understand the lesson that game imparts, or until they’ll be able to get the feelings you want them to have.
The title can still be “Top 40 Video Games You Must Play” but at least you can do a pre-amble about how they might not be the best or first of a category, but the examples that are possible to play in 2018.