What? Is this some kind of philosophical crap? There is no way to establish quality? Of course there is. Practically everything can be broken down into smaller components and then analyzed.
Crap? Let's not go there, please.
You can analyse everything, true, but that doesn't mean that you can establish objective quality.
Of course, you can always build a car of wood and claim the quality is superior to that of a carbon fiber car because it will naturally rot and thus not pollute the environment, but that would just make you look like a hippie.
Yes, as hard as it might hurt your sense of order in the universe, there are probably a few people on Earth who would consider such a car superior.
Quality, like terminology, is generally defined by the leading experts in any given field. It can be measured and quanitified so it be discussed without every discussion turning into a debate about definitions.
Ehm, no, quality is not determined by experts. Quality is subjective - and experts don't have the power to decide what quality means. They have an opinion based on their own subjective experiences.
Are you sure you understand what objectively better means? It doesn't mean that whatever an expert claims is true - and experts rarely agree anyway.
I can't tell someone who's enjoying Minesweeper that it's a pathetically simplistic and boring game and be right, because the person might think otherwise.
I can't say to a young and inexperienced gamer that Dishonored looks like shit - because I don't have that authority, and some people actually prefer cartoon style art directions.
I probably have more experience with gaming and the industry than most experts do with their fields - because I've been abnormally obsessive about my passion, but that doesn't make me an authority at all.
An example: I like fast food. That does not mean fast food has high quality. It doesn't. It provides next to no nurishment, generally has way too much salt in it, and is overall unhealthy. Thus the quality is low, yet I still like it. Liking something has nothing to do with the quality of the product. It's just a way to define a product, so when I say "high quality food" everyone knows that I'm not referring to my local kebab shop, despite the fact that I really like those kebabs.
Quality can be many things beyond what we perceive to be healthy or nourishing. It can be an emotional response to the taste of fat and salt, which can be highly enjoyable. It can be how full you feel after eating - and it can be satisfying a particular craving that vegetables just can't provide.
You may believe you can decide for other people that what they enjoy isn't actually quality - but that doesn't mean you're right about it.
There is no law or higher authority out there who can claim that what we currently believe to be physically healthy is "better" than other kinds of food.
You can't say that because steel is stronger than wood, it's the superior material. Because there are other factors at work - and it depends on what you're going to do with it.
Some people care more about design than practical function, for instance, and in that case - everything a pragmatic expert would claim to be true might not be true at all for those people.
It's not as simple as we might want it to be.
The same thing obviously goes for graphics - don't even try to tell me that the average gamer does not know what "high quality graphics" refer to. Sadly, it doesn't include Might & Magic 6-8 no matter how much I love those games. I can't stand Battlefield 4, yet I have no problems admitting the graphics are of higher quality than any game I actually do like, even Skyrim and so on.
I'm not trying to "tell" you anything. I'm simply explaining why I think you're wrong - and doing my best to provide you with rational arguments.
If you want to believe there is such a thing as objectively better graphics - then that's fine by me.
I simply don't agree - and I find your arguments weak and unconvincing.
But that's not exactly a big deal