@DArtagnan
you're talking about taste though. No one would argue that a pair of sneakers that are ruined within 1 week are of much high quality than the pair that held up for 3 years and were more comfortable. It just wouldn't make any sense. However you can say that the color or the look of the ruined sneakers were more to your taste. I'm pretty sure you know the difference.
For games, music, movies or art it's much harder to judge quality, but like anything else it's totally doable (by a person who is an expert in that particular area.) Most people are better off not judging the quality of said things though, because most people lack the knowledge to do so… And this is why we have taste, since it's not really something you can argue against, it's subjective, while quality isnt.
No, I'm talking about quality being impossible to establish for anything but the most basic items of primitive function.
Your shoe example is a good one to point out that even in such a simple case, quality is subjective. But if you were talking about "build quality" then it could probably be established. Except that shoes are often about the name and the label, and build quality based on pricing is tricky. You'd have to be an expert on materials - as in how does natural conditions affect materials - and in what way. Are some shoes better for walking in mud than on the pavement? What if the person using the shoes will use them for one kind of terrain instead of the other? On and on, and it's suddenly not so simple. Especially not when you add in the human element of how some people are exceptionally good at taking care of their things, and some people would wear out even the most durable shoes in a month. You will find experts in every field in the world disagreeing over what label/brand/item is best, just as you will find gaming experts disagreeing over what game has the best combat system. Who is right?
Again, it's much harder to do than you think.
As for knowledge - it has nothing to do with quality when it comes to entertainment. Why? Because the primary function of entertainment is to entertain. It doesn't have to matter in the slightest how good it looks or how good it sounds - or how deep and complex the mechanics are, unless those elements add to the entertainment value - and that will vary a LOT from individual to individual.
Some people would rather play Solitaire than Pillars of Eternity. Does that make Solitaire the best game of the highest quality? Perhaps it does to those people. Your preferences and knowledge of games makes no difference whatsoever there.
A person without any experience whatsoever can enjoy one game over the other, and as such - that one game will be of a higher quality to HIM than the other game, regardless of how much talent or passion went into making them.
Trying to objectively establish quality based on your own personal preferences is called arrogance.
I recommend not going that way.
I have more experience with gaming in general than 99.9% of the population. Does that mean I get to decide what game is of a higher quality than the rest of humanity? Does that mean that the person on the Watch with the most experience gets to be "right" when he or she says one game is better than another?
What a silly suggestion, really.