I see it as standing for "crap game" 

...so tired 

That's what I use this one for. 

...even more tired 

Because, either your an idiot, or because you haven't upgraded to the necessary patch. It does work in Skirmish. 

You don't by any chance think it might be both? 

LOL 

I hope this isn't stating the obvious, but the reason those two students' comments are so subjective is because they're not commenting on whether or not the teacher is good or bad, but they're commenting on whether or not the teacher is good or bad for them individually. If they wanted to be objective, they should have looked around them at how most of the class was doing, and maybe a few other classes, too.

How to measure quality objectively? Determine the properties that are most important to the largest number of people, and then see if those properties are positively or negatively affecting them.

As for art, as you mentioned you can measure the build quality. But the whole point of art is that it is dependant on individual interpretation, so obviously you can't objectively measure artistic value because it is entirely subjective. So artistic value can be "good" or "bad" for you individually, but it cannot be measured universally.

However, there truly can be a problem in weighing the positive and negative properties because there might be slight variations in our perception of those properties. Sometimes they will be obviously good and sometimes they will be obviously bad. I would argue, however, that because we're dealing with properties affecting most people and not properties affecting very few people, that our disagreement about the overall positive/negative judgement would differ only to a very small degree. For example, you might say it's great and I might say it's good, but it's probably somewhere in that range. Or, I might say it's slightly good and you might say it's slightly bad, but it's probably closer to mediocre. 

If you're talking about goodness, and you don't mean moral goodness, then you probably mean how effective something is at fufilling its purpose. A math teacher is good so far as he effectively teaches math to his students, so the average quality of each student's educations is what we care about.

A game's purpose is up for debate probably, which is why you'll get debate on which games were good. If the purpose is "make money" then the most profitable games are the best. If the purpose is "be entertaining" then surely popularity DOES matter, becuase a game that 1 in 10,000 people liked, and the other 9999 people didn't like, can't be good even if those 9999 people are "idiots."

Note: there are other candidate answers for "what is the point of games?" I just gave two. 

RPG, thanks for making my poing =). Because here, you are clearly contradicting yourself. From your original post:

""Good" is not a measure of popularity. "Popularity" is a measure of popularity, and "good" is a measure of quality."

vs.

"How to measure quality objectively? Determine the properties that are most important to the largest number of people, and then see if those properties are positively or negatively affecting them."

Now please explain to me the difference.

Disclaimer: I know how hard this subject is. I have had hours and hours of discussions with Aardappel, headshot and Borsato on this topic, and the bottom line for me personally was that there hardly is something "objective" because there is no higher instance that defines this term. Eventually, there is only you vs. the majority. Some people might argue that the majority doesn't get to dictate what quality is because the majority of people is dumb - and I would agree. But who does, then? Your favorite columnist? Your dad? Your art teacher?

I for one don't know. 

Really. 

That's something else that bothers me about R.P.G.s definition of quality - the selection of properties is completely arbitrary. I mean, "make money" and "be entertaining" are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum, because games that "make money" are probably those which are entertaining to the masses, but not to us. We seem to have different standards, but does that make our standards better than those of the masses? 

I think we mostly believe that there is some common property that all good games have, and that there's consensus among people about which games are good. In other words, we believe we could be objective about the matter, even if we aren't always.

If those beliefs were false, there would be no point in discussing games with other people, because we would have no common ground, no unchanging reality that both of us experience and can identify and reason about. 

I think games and other pop culture/mass pruducts (music for example) shouldnt not be judged by the popularity, cause marketing and advertisment plays a huge role. Very often a crap game gets rather popular just because its based on a popular franchize and has a massive ad compaign, but a good game might pass almost unnoticed if it is lacking the hype/advertisment 

now we need to be more specific about what popularity means. There are two concepts:

* how many people total have played this game?
* what percentage of people like the game?

This is the difference between well-known and well-liked. 

Ok, perhaps a subtle distinction, but something can be popular and still come out as a negative in the general weight of positives/negatives of its qualities. 

Now it's getting interesting, I think. Metl, I don't agree there. Even if there's no common ground, it's still worth discussing things, but you have to leave out taste. You can still discuss for example the feelings you have when you experience a certain piece of art. But you cannot make any generalized statements.
And about well-liked vs. well-known, I think that well-known does not play any role even in defining the term "popularity", let alone "quality", because a game / song / movie /whatever can be well-known, but if most people regard it as crap, well, it's not popular is it? Same goes for persons, by the way =).

R.P.G. I'm still not convinced that there are many objective criteria when it comes to art. But personally, in my subjective view, popular things / persons are usually suspect and I don't like them.

By the way, what about innovation? That is a fairly objective term, since something is either innovative (to most people), or it is not. 

And about well-liked vs. well-known, I think that well-known does not play any role even in defining the term "popularity", let alone "quality", because a game / song / movie /whatever can be well-known, but if most people regard it as crap, well, it's not popular is it?

Sure, but this is my whole point -- these are distinct concepts, and we should be clear about which we mean. When someone says that popularity is entirely the result of marketing and advertising, they must be talking about how well-known a game is. 

For software, we have a great way of defining quality. Is it bug free? The lower the number of bugs per hour of use, the higher the quality of the code - as far as the end user is concerned. 

Isnt the popularity of any commercial product measured in the ammount of sold copies? And thats about the only thing you can really count. No one knows how many of the customers are satisfied.

DKT is rahter well known game ... :) 

but thats only one aspect
there are many more qualities to code than lack of bugs 

What speedy said, plus there is a difference between quality of software (user experience) and quality of code.

But software is a bit of a different matter because it certainly is easier to quantify or to find the properties rpg speaks of. It's rather easy to find criteria that make good software.

It's much more difficult when it comes to artistic endevours. 

Overuse of coloured lighting = bad game.

It was all so easier back then. :( 

be a manly man and dare to use your judgement -
a bad game is a bad game and a good game is a good game. Bad art, good art.

You can't really run away behind some statistics or somehow scientifically factually deduce "good" from something like art.

People tend to listen to those critics they have found to be reasonable when compared to their own view, but even their ideas may sometimes deviate a lot.

Here is an example of an opinionated review that is further based on some more opinions:

Id textures are pretty good. They are detailed, handmade, vivid but not oversaturated on contrast, fit the palette well (except that one mip level of some woods get red spots when bright) and are inspired, strong, peculiar and beautiful. 

every freakshow can have an opinion. but in order to have a meaningful discussion, a rational debate, or an academic discourse -- you need definition and objectivevely quantifiable concepts with which to compare and contrast two or more different pieces of, in this case, videogame.