I've been slowly making my way through reading the book 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. As expected, there are a bunch that you probably don't really need to play; it's just nice to know the influence that they had on future releases. For example, do I really need to play Pong? Pretty sure I played a version on the Atari, or at least something similar, so I think I can forgo that. Do I really need to play Virtua Racer when I own Forza 2? Do I really need to play Xevious, surely there are better shoot-em-ups released in recent years (and there are. I tried the XBLA demo and was not impressed).

It's interesting as I make my way through the book that I remember some old games I used to play, and recently I've taken to looking a few of them up to see if they still hold up today. The entries in the book say they do... but in some cases I beg to differ. Of course, some of it may be that I don't like terribly hard games, and some of these older games feel unforgiving. I can hear the component of you that whinge about how easy gamers have it these days, but the fact is if I'm not enjoying a game, then why play it? A game needs to offer some challenge, but there is a threshold.

I thought I might try and make my through the book, and play the games that are available online, or possibly available on one of the console services. The older games are usually easier to size up quickly, so they don't take long, but I suspect there might be a threshold later on when the games get more involving. Feel free to chime in on your experience with any of these games.

Oregon Trail - I think I played this in school, but I don't really remember. I've just played it online. It's a bit of a morbid simulation really. I managed to make it on my first try... but 4 out of 5 of my party died and I thought I wasn't going to make it. I scored 818 points if anyone cares. It takes about half hour to play, so you might get something out of playing it.
Pong - I'm not playing Pong. I know what it is, and I can't see it being entertaining for more than 30 seconds.
Breakout - I loved breakout on the Atari 2600. I know there are other iterations in the book (like Arkanoid) so I see no need to play this version.
Boot Hill - I don't think I need to play this game either. Apparently a lot of the charm was the arcade cabinet itself, so it doesn't even seem worth looking up.
Combat - I remember playing this game on the Atari 2600. I haven't gone back to revisit it, but I did check some youtube footage to make sure it was the game I was thinking of. I don't really play multiplayer games, but I imagine this would still stand up reasonably even today.
Space Invaders - Who hasn't played Space Invaders? I don't see a need to revisit it, I played it mainly on the Atari 2600.
Adventure - I tried playing this for a little while, but I guess the bland visuals and not knowing what items were supposed to do what was a bit annoying. I think I ended up dying because I was 'stuck' inside a dragon and couldn't really move, but it wasn't clear either. Meh.
Asteroids - Like Space Invaders, I'm sure everyone has played Asteroids. I played my fair share on the Atari 2600, plus I think I played some iteration or clone on the Amiga 500 as well.
Galaxian - I gave this a bit of a go, but after a couple of games I was growing a bit tired of it. Similar to Space Invaders, the book notes its advancement because the enemies swoop down and try and attack you, but it isn't enough to hold interest for long.
Lunar Lander - I'm completing this list days after starting writing it... and I've been back to revisit Lunar Lander on multiple occassions. The vector graphics are simple, but the physics are realistic, and you need to shuttle your space ship from landing pad to pad by rotating your ship and using your thrusters, while gravity seeks to bring you to a crash. It's amazingly compelling for such an old game, though it's possible you've played a clone or successor throughout the years.
Battle Zone - I gave this one play and that was enough. I can see why it was important in a historical sense for video games, but it isn't really compelling today when we have fully 3D realms and better controls.
Defender - As I understand this is a champion forerunner among shoot-em-ups, but I found it insanely hard. While it is like a side-scrolling shoot-em-up, you can turn your ship around at any point... usually headlong first into a bullet that is almost impossible to avoid. Probably the only game of its like (able to scroll left or right) that I've played would be Fantasy Zone for the Master System, which I'd much prefer over this.
Eamonn - I tried playing this text adventure, but I just really couldn't get into it. Part of it may have been the blockiness of the writing, but I suspect I just may be past text adventures and they won't really do anything for me. Which is interesting, because I do like books and reading. When the next one comes along (and I know there are a few more) perhaps I will give it a try before writing it off completely.
Missile Command - Ah, Missile Command. Another that I played on the Atari 2600. I just tried a couple of versions then, one which was a multiplayer version, and another that is just an update. The multiplayer one was jerky and therefore not really playable, and the single player one just seemed hard to predict, though I suppose you would get used to after time. The core mechanics are still decent today, but there wasn't enough there to keep me playing.
Rogue - I tried searching for 'play rogue' and a couple of variants, but I really got a lot of 'how to play a rogue in WoW' and such and such, and couldn't be bothered trying to find one. In any case I've heard about rogues and rogue-likes, and I just don't think they would be for me. I reckon I played one on the Amiga 500 a good many years ago called Moria, which I would say I liked back then, but I doubt that would be the case now.
Tempest - I played a sem-remake, but it still seems to have all the trappings of the original, one of which is jerky movement around the 'web' that your enemies are climbing up. I have no idea what the jump button is supposed to do. I think I'd prefer to play Space Giraffe.
MUD - To be frank, I just can't be bothered checking this out. I get its history, but not being much of a multiplayer person, I just don't want to invest any time trying this out.
Pacman - Another cIassic that everyone should know. To be fair, I don't know that I have ever played an original Pac-Man arcade machine. But I've played iterations of it before, and don't need to go back and play the original.
Pheonix - I just played the original version of the game... but it took up about a tenth of my screen, so was pretty hard to play. Another variation on the horizontal-plane-only shooter, it does mix things up by having a shield you can activate to protect yourself. But with the screen that small, I could never see what was happening. I went looking for another version, but only found a fan-made sequel, but I'm not too fussed about it.
Zork - So I've given this text adventure a bit longer, but the font was a lot better. I've gotten to point where I'm somewhat stuck in a maze. I'm also wondering if something is wrong or missing with this version, because I got a place that had a door in the north, and also the northwest. But the game did not recognise 'northwest' as a word, and when I wrote 'north west' with a space in between, it just took me west. Similarly there was a place that had signs saying northwest and northeast but I couldn't go in either direction, just back the way I came. Nevertheless, I think I want more visual feedback in my games these days.
Warlords - Given there are any number of later games with the words Warlords in the title, I couldn't find a playable version of this game quickly, but I found video. While I haven't played this particular version, I have played a clone of it, pretty sure it was for the Amiga 500. Basically it is like Breakout, but with 4 players, and each player has a corner of the screen as their territory. They have a paddle that they can move around their territory to reflect back and break down your opponents bricks. In the update I played when graphics were improved, it was opposing castles whose walls you had to break down and take out their general who resided inside the castle with a well place hit.
Centipede - I don't know if the game is normally this fast, but I tried a version online that used the mouse to move your cursor around, and it was insanely fast. I wasn't really compelled by this well-known game, but maybe the version I played wasn't really faithful to the original (though it did appear to be the original graphics).
Galaga - I only played one game, but it's probably the best out of its contemporaries. However, I expect the shield in the game must be pretty powerful and take a fair number of bullet hits. I didn't count, but I got up to the 12th stage after getting a couple of shields in the early levels... Then I lost my shield. Then the game was over within 30 seconds.
Donkey Kong - I've made an amazing revelation. I always thought Donkey Kong had one screen, and that was it. I thought if you completed it, you just started it again. Lo and behold, there are actual multiple levels. So now I i feel like a gaming idiot. Still, I couldn't be bothered playing it for too long, not that it is bad, just not compelling enough to keep me playing.

What are your thoughts on any of these games, if you have played them?