Quality?

Pretty sure every game in those franchises has an 80 or higher review average. I'd say that makes them objectively quality games, whether you personally care for them or not.

I'd love to be able to play Halo again (have have beast PC and Nintendo products) but I have no interest in buying another xbox for it. I'm looking forward to the day they finally release past Halo games on PC and current ones.

Dejavu , i said this 10 times in ten years after Microsoft E3 conference

I don't know about that. Metacritic scores derive from a collection of people who personally care or don't care about certain games. Does a byline remove subjectivity?

Well let's put scores aside then, and just say that the games generally receive more positively written reviews than negative ones. I mean we can say Meta isn't always the best way to judge games, and I'd agree with that even, but if the general consensus of reviewers isn't what we want to use to determine whether or not a game is objectively leaning towards low or high quality, what do we want to use? We just pick and choose, who's right, and who's wrong?

I think we just have to keep objectivity entirely out of the equation. 

Metacritic is a fine way to measure the critical consensus, but it's a poor way to judge objective greatness. Each individual score carries with it the weight of an individual's gaming predilections.

If we're talking about greatness, sure. That tends to be far more subjective. I'm simply talking about quality. It's pretty easy to say whether or not something is quality. At least I tend to think so. There are lots of things I don't like for various reasons, but I can still say with confidence that many of them are quality products.

I sort of see "greatness" and "quality" the same way.

Now, I agree that you can measure certain things scientifically. Digital Foundry makes a living based on that. 

But apart from frame rate and textures and lighting effects, can can you made a convincing case for objective video game quality? Some people like easy games; some prefer difficult ones. Online multiplayer is essential for many reviewers; for others its an afterthought. Complex menus and button inputs are off-putting for some, and immersive for others. Gameplay, by its definition, is a very personal, subjective thing -- it's how we as players interact with the rules of the game.

First off, that was a typo in my post there, meant subjective, but I think you got it.

And ya, I do absolutely think one can make a convincing case for the objective quality of a video, regardless of tastes. For starters, how are the production values? Visual design, sound design, etc. How do those match up to similar games, in the same genre? Does the game perform well on a technical level? Then, in terms of the gameplay, you're absolutely right that we all have (very) different ideas of what constitutes fun gameplay, but....does the game execute the intended gameplay well? Again, how does it stack up to similar gameplay in it's competitors? There are lots of very easy, objective ways to determine quality.