Its all about opinions, you cannot satisfy everyone.

So are you saying there is an objective basis for quality?

Game quality is inherently subjective.

lol game quality is subjective like peoples taste in food, women and pussy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8drSUe4g9Qo

there are some aspects that are objective, for example frame rate, screen tearing, controls, etc.

The importance one puts on those attributes vary from person to person. And again, there are the non-objective attributes that probably make way more of a difference than a technical attribute like frame rate.

Some confuse them as being the same thing. Results inconclusive.

of course, im just stating their are some aspects of a game that IMHO are objective. For instance if a game simply doesnt work (Steel Battalion). But those are extreme cases.  

Now we are playing with the subjective card... Kinda funny, i read a lot of "this is the best game (x period) " from a lot of these users =|

No, what you described are things that are measurable. That still doesn't address how much value (if any) to give to that attribute.

For example, would you argue that having a higher player count is a good thing, all else held equal? Say for Battlefield 4, 24 players on the current gen consoles and 64 players on the next gen.

If you say yes, have you considered things like how big the maps are or how the game will play out?

And again, a lot of the measurable things you mentioned come with a trade off. Pixels for framerate for example. How much weight do you give to each of those things?

While if you have the same exact game (all else held equal) then it'll be easy to assess the "quality" of a game with the objective measurments you gave. So that might work for something like multiplats (and it has been going on). But when we try to assess quality for the game itself, or the game relative to other games, then those measurable attributes just fall into something subjective again.