Well, it doesn't cram much data, actually; mainly the space is taken up by ridiculously verbose and redundant descriptions. But I see where the main use of lateral space is (which exacerbates the wastage), and I'm gonna go fix it right now.

EDIT: Now it displays well in portrait on my N800 (at 100% zoom); I think that should be good? (The tallest entry is only 5 lines high.) BTW, all these long url auto-links are the main thing preventing it from working well on narrow screens; is there a reason not to wikify them?

Still, some editorial work is needed on those descriptions; I don't want to get involved in that, a debate over formatting is sufficient without heating things up with content editing.
Pacman is puzzles? I'd have taken it to be arcade. What about strategy games played on boards? To me it seems that, while the lines between these may not be quite clear, they all (except pacman) are distinct from arcade/action games. So I was thinking they might be subcategories...

But I don't know; don't really care either.
But how is this page trying to be organized? By genre, or by technical requirements? Both is not good, it makes it difficult to find the games you want because they could be in either place. And what about game engines like lxdoom, that come with a shareware version of the files? The "need" for a separate category seems to dissolve here, but people may look in the game engine category anyway, knowing that it is a game engine, and not knowing that the wad is included.

I suppose we could put up a poll on this, but I think very few people really think having a several-hundred-line TOC is a good idea. What would be the point of that? (I'm really open to explanations, but I can see no reason it's helpful.)