I was counting second parties the same way; for me Luigi's Mansion 3, developed by Next Level before their purchase by Nintendo, for example, is a good game but not quite great, same for Yoshi's Crafted World. (By Good Feel)

Mario Maker 2?

Games focused on user generated content don't really feel worth it to me and while it did have a single player component which I watched my little brother play through, it felt more like a series of tutorials.

That said, I'd love a new AAA 2D Mario on Switch.

This trailer still brings a tear to my eye. Probably the most epic game trailer I've seen.

You 100%ed Torna in 30 hours? That's way too long, I'd say. 

Wow, that's not a good look for Switch, if you ask me. BotW is certainly a contender for the best game on the system... But it's also a Wii U game, and probably one at heart, too. Odyssey is okeish, Splatoon 2 is nothing out of this world and Xenoblade 2 is quite the bad game. Really, I'd say Three Houses is the better title compared to those three, even if it also has its red flags, but its massive scope really puts it on another level entirely. Probably Luigi's Mansion 3, too, thanks in great part to those gorgeous visuals, but I didn't finish it nor did like it. 

Too long in what way?  If you think 30 hours is a long game, I assume you must not play JRPGs in general.

But if you mean to say that you think I spent too much time in the game...

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=60782

As you can see it lines up with what is expected from Torna.  Hell the main story alone clocks in at 17 hours if you ignore as much side content as possible.

I would disagree here. Now, quality is a very broad term. And I would consider a thing possibly having multiple qualities. And yes, some of these are more subjective. But many qualities are objective, and this is also true if you reduce it to games. So it is one quality, how much the game is freed of bugs and glitches. You can easily say that you like a game, but it has shitty quality in this regard. The original UFO: Enemy Unknown is one of my most beloved games, but the original version had quite some serious bugs to the point that it just could crash in some sequences. I think many like Skyrim and still see it as a glitchfest. Or you could consider the amount of interesting content. In this regard you just have to look at Smash Ultimate and marvel at the amount of fun content, even if you not into fighters or Smash in particular.

Another thing is: if you say these lists you made are completely subjective, then they are completely pointless. Because the count of games will differ wildly based on personal preferences in genre. But I think such list of great games for each platform still can be made, if you consider more objective criteria. Sales are actually an important factor, because they may not be a measurement of quality for you, but big sales actually mean that for many people the value of the game exceeded it's price. So sales are a very indirect measurement of the perception of quality for bigger amounts of people. I just have to accept that I am not the only person deciding which games are great. If Mario Party sells big numbers, even if I don't like it, I have to accept that it offers great value for many other people. So I have to take a step back and accept that maybe this game is overall a good game, even if I don't like it.

Quality is actually objective.  Gameplay preference is completely subjective however.  I will use myself as an example...

I absolutely despise Red Dead Redemption 2 and feel it ia heavily overrated.  However I would not say it isn't a quality product.  The game is oozing of quality for those that like it.

I also think TLoU2 is a very average game with an average story that plays well enough, but fails to keep me hooked for much more than half the game.  That does not change the fact that it is a quality product.

On the flip side, I loved Orphan Scion of Sorcery as a kid.  Even back then, I knew the game was trash.  But something compalled me to beat it multiple times.

More recently, on PS3 there is a JRPG called Cross Edge.  That game has so many problems with it, that it could be called anything BUT quality.  I however really enjoyed it because it also had aspects that I liked.  In no way would I call it a quality game compared to other big JRPGs.

It is completely possible to recognize what is quality and what isn't, even when it does bot line up with your gameplay preference.  By definition, quality is indeed objective in every sense.

I will agree however that sales are not a measure of quality either.  For example Cyberpunk, while a great game in of itself, WAS NOT a quality product at launch...or even now.  Yet it sold millions on hype.

On the flip side, games from your own like like the Msteoid Prime games did not blow up sales at all, but they are indeed quality games.

Quality is only objective if you only use objective metrics to measure it like the number of bugs, stable framerates, polished graphics and textures, good resolution, good controls and camera, good sound editing, good physics, good voice acting, quality of life additions, etc. There is an overall agreement and common sense about those. I've never met anybody saying that likes to play a game with unstable framerates or clunky controls, so I see those metric as objective 

But when evaluating arts we also include subjective metrics: What makes a OST good, what make art direction good, what makes a story well written, what makes a good design character, what is good level and world design, what even a good gameplay supposed to be? Those as more subjective criteria, there is no proper answer for any of that

That's make quality of games indeed subjective