I'll just get straight to the point. The editors of the book have failed completely in the balancing of their selection of games for the book.
I'll give some examples:
1. According to the book there are 10 games worth playing from the entire 70's, yet there are 106 games from 2009. Yes, I'm not kidding, 106. In fact, the 70's, 80's and 90's make up half the book, with he 00's taking up the second half. It's almost unbelievable how skewed the book is in this sense. The entries for the last few years read more as a list of every game published in that year, rather than a list of recommendations. Even games that were met with mixed reviews at best are included. I smell kickbacks. In fact I kinda hope they were involved, because someone settling on this list without them is just too sad to be true.
2. Less importantly, but still an issue is a sometimes extreme bias towards certain genres. Most noticeably, there is an over-abundance of SCHMUPS and great lack of insight into the development of the graphic adventure genre. For some reason they've listed every single LucasArts adventure game, while listing nearly none of the competition, leaving a severely unbalanced picture. After all, this is supposed to be 1001 games you must play before you die, right? Not the 1001 best games every made. Because if it's the latter, then I guess the book is fine, but for the former I find it completely fails to give an appropriate overview of the development of the genres.
Before you buy it, at least keep in mind what kind of book you're getting. It reads more like an advertisement for recent games than any serious attempt to collate a list of games you must or should play. I had it on pre order from the day I heard about it, and I can tell you without dropping a beat, I would not have bought it had I know the direction they've taken the book in, which is a great shame because 1001 albums, books and movies are all great book. This one, however, is not.