wolfenstein and doom arent 'great' games at this point though. theyd be rejected for the same reasons pong got rejected.
I am not an FPS player and haven't played a lot of Doom or Wolfenstein back in the day (I played both of them probably once or twice at a friends place as I wasn't a PC gamer myself and didn't game a lot back then in the first place).
While Pong is imo significant in how much it meant for gaming in general, Wolfenstein and Doom have more or less created (Wolfenstein) and popularized (Doom) a genre that's still very popular today (It's probably still the most popular genre, or it's at least one of the most popular genres). Hell, Doom popularized gaming in general. I heard a lot about Doom on the playground back then even though I didn't know it in the beginning.
I think they are way more significant than Pong and legitimately deserve a spot in the Hall of Greats. That said, it's the same discussion again in what people thing is the reason a game deserves to be in there.
Imo it can be games that were considered great in the years they came out and are still well known if they had a significant impact on the games industry.
Some people only want newer games because they feel like those older games are not really playable any more.
I can see both sides, but imo the latter way of thinking would make it so you would have to kick out games after a few years because they are "too old" to be in there. I don't really see how that works. When does a game stops being "Great"?
There is nothing wrong with older games. I honestly can't see a HoG without at least Doom (even though It's a game that doesn't mean a lot to me personally).