I think we just philosophically disagree. I'd describe some musicians as objectively good as well. For example, I'd argue that Mozart was a brilliant musician even though I'd prefer to something else.
I believe in the importance of recognizing excellence in others even it's in something that isn't my personal cup of tea. Saying something is objectively good, just means you recognize excellence in something that isn't for you.
But if "objectively good" just means "I see quality in something, it just isn't for me," that's equally subjective unless somehow we've developed objective measures of the quality of a game.
Is a game good if it has quality voice acting? What does "quality" voice acting even mean? I think most people can identify bad voice acting, sure, but sometimes even that is enjoyable to people. Is good voice acting simply something we don't recognize as bad, or are there specific things you point to to say it's good? I think if you start to break it down, you eventually get to subjective measures--this performance made me feel something emotionally, or that performance struck the wrong note, or whatever. Even just saying "I thought the voice acting was too hyperactive for my tastes but I can see why others would like it" is still a subjective measure on some level.
And that's just one aspect among many. Graphics, game mechanics, UI, level design--all of those things eventually boil down to some subjective take. Even "well-crafted" isn't a good dodge because unless we're literally just measuring the amount of time or effort put into making a game, whether a game feels well-crafted or not is still subjective on some level. (And if we ARE just measuring the amount of time or effort put into making a game, Duke Nukem Forever would like to have a word with you.) How do you determine a level of craft? And let's say you did have the archetypal "well-crafted" game, something where all the graphics feel just right (subjective) and the mechanics are so finely tuned that it feels fantastic to play (subjective) and has excellent game balance that challenges the player while not being too difficult (subjective!). Let's say this chimera actually exists, but then when you actually play it, it feels soulless. Is that a game where you'd go "I see the quality in this, but it's not for me" any more than any other game you maybe didn't like?
I dunno. I feel like ultimately this makes a lot more sense as "what are some games whose appeal you understand, but don't like personally." Almost the same, but gets away from this idea of your opinion being subjective, and there being some kind of objective truth others have uncovered.
Anyways, to answer the original question (or some version of it): my answer is Mario. I can see why people love the games, they seem very mechanically sound as platformers and they have a lot of character, but I just can't play them well enough to feel like I'm getting much out of them. I am a terrible Mario player.
