You seem to be arguing against the assertion that there exists an objective quantity against which the quality of a game can be measured, but I have never heard anyone make such a claim.

That's because no one ever does make that claim. It is simply assumed to be true. Tacit assumptions like that are present in all human cultures.
When's the last time you've heard someone tell you that something or other was "Right" or "Wrong" but neglected to explain why? You may find a tacit assumption of objective morality there. Or maybe you've been told that some person is entitled to something; free speech, a money-back guarantee, or anything else. There might be a tacit assumption of natural rights behind that.
Such assumptions are not inherently wrong. I believe that their main function is to ease decision-making, and that's not a bad thing. But it's important to recognize their existence and their validity, or lack of validity. Otherwise, you may find yourself making judgements on false premises.
Hmmm..."Tacit assumptions like that are present in all human cultures." See? Right there! An unspoken assumption of universal human nature! I'd better watch myself...

True to a certain point. But also, as a customer of a product in capitalism, you have a ultimate right to decide what to buy and what not to buy, based on any criteria you choose. There are also laws that are supposed to guarantee fair dealing by people selling things.

Another thing with older games? They generally are cheaper for the same expierence you would have when they came out. Extra money+extra game=happy camper.

I agree... bearing in mind that your right to choose what you buy implies a right to face the consequences of your choices, and that what constitutes "Fair Dealing" is another thing that many people have differences of opinion about.

Or an even better experience. Many of the games have patches that make them better, or a "gold edition" that comes with all of the expansions and bonus material that would have cost extra at release. Also, most older games can be played at quality settings that would have never been possible when there were released. One of the things I love about GOG is buying a game and setting everything to "very high" instead of fighting with optimizing it to get it to play.

*gasp* You mean that subjective opinion does not equal objective fact? (I feel like throwing a "Captain Obvious" in there). Anyone saying one game is better than another is stating his or her opinion. This should be obvious to anyone. It should hardly be necessary to qualify every statement one makes with a "of course, this is my subjective opinion, not objective fact". Any post would be twice as long, and the forum would be more or less unreadable.

Agreed.
(But that quote tag is broken. The quote attributed to me is from domgrief. EDIT: Now fixed, but don't want this to look like a "me too and that's all" post. :-)

Partly correct. I mostly take issue with the people who express their "opinions" in an aggressive, almost dogmatic sort of way that doesn't brook any argument or allow the possibility of compromise. It's almost as if they DO take their own opinions to be the truth. Not everyone does that, otherwise there would be no point in labeling the worst offenders as "Elitists."
Also, I'd like to see a super-politically correct forum someday. I think it would be funny.

Well, people do make claims about objective morality or natural rights all the time, so it wouldn't surprise me that there might be such ideas behind statements like that.
But you're assuming that people talking about their preferences in games, movies or books have similar notions about objective quality, and I've never seen any reason to believe that comments like "System Shock 2 is way better than Bioshock" are anything more than a mildly hyperbolic colloquialism for "I liked System Shock 2 a lot more than I liked Bioshock."
Why do you think a statement like that is meant to be taken as a disclosure of objective fact?

Well, specifically, it was this little bit at the end. First:
Where you seem to say that money spent on something of little or no value to you, is a matter of no importance. Then:
Again, provided that you have enough money to buy them. And finally:
Where you seem to argue that games are not things you buy with hard earned money, but simply stuff you download.
That may not be at all what you meant, but that is how I interpreted it.

Sorry, it was broken when I got it. I demand my money back! :-D
Fixed now.

Only in very small doses, I think :-/

I base my interpretation on the violence of the delivery.
"I liked SS2 better than Bioshock." -is pretty straightforward.
"2K Games SUX!!! Bioshock SUX!!!! They shoudl just callit BS because it is FUCKING BULLSHIT!!@!@!@!!!@!11!!" -could be more straightforward.

By whom?
Hehe, if we're going to be nitpicky about it, it can't really be unspoken, since you claim it quite explicitly. It must be a spoken assumption, then ;-)

I for one, am fine with anyone calling me elitist.
I have my opinions, and I'm more than willing to debate them, but I'm a stubborn fool and unlikely to change them.

By people who loudly hold up their particular game or genre as the "best" of its kind, without properly explaining why, and shout down anyone who voices a differing opinion.
And it WAS unspoken... before I edited my post.