StarEye: Sorry, but I wasn't too clear about the objectivity question before apparantely. What you said so well in your last post isn't so far away from my point of view: while there are certain 'facts' concerning games (and whatever else we're talking about), they can never automatically translate into any conclusion (which would be 'objectivity'). A fact is for example the resolution used in a game, the number of colours, background being hand-drawn and so on. However, none of these things automatically mean 'good graphics' or 'bad graphics'. That's completely subjective again, and independent from the aforementioned facts. Just an obvious example: I am aware that graphics in today's computer games are a great 'technical achievement'. All numbers (facts...) are speaking for themselves. However, I also think these graphics suck badly, for the simple reason that they're not 'art' but math - and I know many people agree with me there. However, according to your logic, such a point of view couldn't exist, because it's against the sacred objectivity.
Same goes for your second paragraph which hardly makes any sense. Accepting your premise, it's very logical, and there is no single argument against it. However, your premise is simply wrong, because you assume there is a common denominator of (for example) 'excellent graphics'. There isn't, as pointed out above.
However, I still agree with most of what you said. There is objectivity. It just doesn't go as far as you'd probably like it to be. Objectivity can only always be based on common and previously defined standards. For example, if I'm saying classical music is the best choice for a game soundtrack, a game using techno tracks objectively has bad music. Simple as that. As long as I stick to that same basis with all my judgements of game music, it's the best objectivity anyone can provide.
And..... that's why 'quality' is completely subjective in the end.
Burseg: As I said, the difference between 'mainstream' and 'underground' has certainly increased significantly in the gaming industry over the last few years. However, it's not only the media hype which 'makes mainstream'. As hinted at, it's also the way a 'product' came into existence. Was it some business people looking at the games charts, deciding genre XYZ is popular at the moment and therefore telling their programmers what to do? Or is it some guys who just thought it would be cool to make a game like ABC or one which would work like blah blah blah?
Even the availability point isn't fully true. There always were commercial games which weren't instantly available, even in a 'western' country like mine. Then there was a huge part of all games which was available through mail order only (or sometimes also in specialized stores). Last, but not least, there was the total 'mainstream': the games which everybody could pick up on every street corner.