I'm not a fan of this newer way of thinking (it really crept in with the higher prices) that games have to have all this 'depth', and be able to be played repeatedly in a home collection to be great games.
That's a style, and something to be valued when you're eyeing the price of a new game for sure, but it's not a great criteria for actually judging a game in so many other ways. Flash Gordon is a great game, and it will never make one of these lists.
Monster Bash doesn't have depth. No question. But it's an all time classic for a reason. It has the full package in so many other ways. If you can only own one game it's probably not the one to have, for sure. If you're building a collection of 10 games would it hold its own? I think so. It's just fun to play, it doesn't ask you to commit to too much, it's great for guests, and just an overall smile builder. My only knock on it is it's overpriced. Collector value is the least interesting thing about any pinball to me.
Lord of the Rings is kind of the opposite. I think it would make a poor "only can own one game" too, but for the opposite reason. To really get anywhere on it you need an epic 45 minute game. If it's all you had to play you'd probably burn out. But again, in a 10 game collection it's great to have that super deep game for when you're in the mood for a real journey. I wouldn't want too many "Keefer" games, just because I wouldn't play all of them often enough. His designs are brilliant, but have that commitment fatigue for me too.
I've sold off a lot of my collection, only kept three, and Metallica is one of them. So I must think highly of it. But I get the "wood chopping" comments too. It's probably not a great "only game" for that reason. But my other two games, Tron and Shadow? I think they stand the test of large and single game collections. Neither of them are in the top 10, but who cares about the top 10? I think I looked at it once when I first joined the site and I haven't paid attention to it since. Never rated a game, never cared.