Personally, I'd consider these sorts of experts far more capable of making selections in this sort of process based on history and cultural influence than the kinds of industry figures you're suggesting. In the end, there is an exhaustive list of games that could be nominated or inducted. This is just one organization's selections.
Can I ask why? Just off curiosity. I myself meet every criteria for what you just mentioned. Mostly all of that is self defined. You cant self define yourself as Shigeru Miyamoto or a legend in the medium. An artist. Anyone can say they are an expert. Self proclaimed experts do things like put Silent Hill 1 in a hall of fame before any Metroid title lol. I am a curator of retro games, I educate people on games I suppose, run a gaming page and media presence, and know vague game history. That bar is so vague and so low. I'm just a guy. I know as much as anyone else or less. None of which make someone's subjective opinion gospel to exclude and include people's sentimental gaming choices. At least with a developer or inventor they have autuority on the matter I can't have as a consumer. That is the problem with most review publications and hall of fames in general but at least most of those have board members that actually have created or transformed the medium. I'm not saying developers would be universally better. But that criteria you just quoted basically means any gamer on this site to James Rolfe or any other person in between. I guarantee our hall of fame would be better. Didn't this site make a top 100 games thing once?
I also don't understand your backtrack on Silent Hill 1 because I feel your gut instinct was definitely right, as it meets none of the criteria you show their site posted for a submission to the hall of fame. It's sole existence is because of a lane Resident Evil carved 3 years prior, even its own devs admitted this, so it cant possibly be considered innovative as a first entry into a genre. It didn't chart new ground. It altered an existing formula's mood. Aside from being first. 2 did everything better.
For every other aspect of gaming
Icon Status - 2 is far more known, sold way more units and is the beacon of the franchise that has been remade like 3 times because of how iconic it is.
Geographical reach - 2 sold more units in every country and was a cult classic in Japan
Innovation- 2 is the main torch bearer for psychological terror. It did it far better than 1. And 1 has mostly been considered to have aged poorly. And is not revered by casuals while 2 is.
To induct a game into the hall of fame that 97 out of 100 consumers hasn't even played is just insane.
And now I add the main reason why I dislike hall of fames.
What metric that you listed does Silent Hill do that Super Metroid or Metroid didn't do better?
Metroid is so genre innovating that it is literally the co-name of an entire genre. People literally couldn't name the genre without using the name Metroid. Metroid is more globally recognizable. Far more accessible to the average player considering Silent Hill isn't even played by children or casuals. Metroid has more staying power being that its older. It's not even in the same realm. It's maybe 10x more qualified. It is a pioneer.
I'm sorry. Off this alone this particular site loses credibility. To me anyway. I just wish these sites would say "our top q00" which screams "opinion and biased" not "hall of fame" which indicates consensus, authority and gospel. The entire hall of fame just off that observation alone doesnt have "historians" and game archeologists that should be taken with any ounce of sincerity over a typical guy. There is no universe where Silent Hill 1 gets in before 2. And no world where it comes even close to GTA 5 (the best selling game of all time. Other franchises have 2 entires) and Metroid. Metroid is possibly more hall of fame.worthy than Donkey Kong if i'm being frank. Unless we include spinoffs
I don't think I could have done worse if I intentionally tried. Like the rock n roll hall of fame. Its lost all meaning.