I know that "good" and "bad" are subjective. They mean different things to different people, and for different reasons. Be that as it may, your reasons. . .aren't great. Here are a couple quotes from your post.



This is absurd, even as an opinion. You're trying to say that there's no measure of objective quality; whatever you're able to have is "the best." However, it just doesn't work that way. A Ferrari is a technically superior car to a Geo, even if you can't afford the Ferrari.



No sir, this is not accurate, even if you mock my use of caps. Technical quality is a provable, measurable thing. The Ferrari is capable of greater performance, and is built with superior materials, to a more exacting standard. You can go out and measure these things. You can prove that the Ferrari goes faster than the Geo. You can prove that it's materials stand up to greater stress. In short, that the Ferrari is technically superior.

Of course, you may personally prefer the Geo. You may say, "any car that looks like a Geo is better than any other car, to me." That's fine, and certainly your prerogative. However, such judgments fall squarely in the realm of personal whimsy. They aren't measurable, provable, or applicable to anyone but yourself. Personal preference has nothing to do with technical superiority, and this is as true in the realm of gaming as it is in the automotive world.

The two primary measures of graphical quality (that I'm aware of) are texture detail, and polygon count. World of Warcraft is measurably, provably deficient in these areas compared to modern games. It IS, in fact, technically inferior when judged under any rational criteria.