send off game, you cant give it a low score even if you wanted to.

however i thought it was a good game either way though and im not even a fan of the series lol

But everything modern Naughty Dog has done has appealed to me, so part of my taste fits what they produce.

That's why I found it disappointing playing it again.

this, i liked the single player campaign slightly better in 2, but the multiplayer was amazing in 3.

and i played the game since, launch, and never noticed poor aiming controls in the gun, i had no idea it was an issue, if it werent for the internet.

Quality and taste are the same thing. There's no way to define the objective greatness of something. How I define quality is based on my priorities and preferences. Same for you or anyone else.

92 is a deserving score for UC3.

You might want to work on that then. Recognising quality has absolutely nothing to do with taste.

You can't be serious? Who is to dictate quality? Just because you say a product is of quality, doesn't mean others will agree.  It has to do with ones opinion, plain and simple. When you say something is of good quality, you are just giving your opinion. 

I can see the quality in things I dislike. I HATE fps but I can recognise the quality of the product.

OK, how you you recognize quality in a video game? What are the objective indicators of greatness?

Quality isn't the same as greatness. I can recognise the quality of a singers voice but dislike they're music. It's about being 'really' objective, not the silly so called objectiveness I see people throwing around on a daily basis. You have to fully comprehend and embrace what objectivity really is and that takes years of questioning yourself.