Deflationistically, we could drop "true" and conclude that a game's measure of worth is what one subjectively thinks about it... but that would annihilate the grounds for communication - if there's only arbitrary opinion, people can agree only through happenstance. Besides - we could never say things like "I know it's not a very good game but I've still enjoyed it" if enjoying it would be the (only ? most meaningful ?) way to assess its value.
Let me do some drive-by-quoting:
"Kant furthermore holds that we are quite right in expressing our aesthetic judgments in an objective mode of speech. It would follow then that our judgments of taste are meant to designate some objective matter of fact. Beauty and deformity would seem to be qualities of the objects which we judge aesthetically. And as we shall see, Kant in fact provides an explanation of the objectivity of beauty and deformity. Hume, on his part , even in the face of the "great variety of taste", declares it "natural for us to seek a Standard of Taste; a rule, by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled; at least, a decision, afforded, confirming one sentiment, and condemning another" ( S T 229)."