listening to phil talk about game design is always a treat. "everyone has different criteria for what makes a good game" he said after someone asked if Stray could beat Elden Ring for game of the year. While peoples views on what is a good game or not is relatively subjective, as in, most people consider games good based on whether or not they personally find them fun, this doesn't remove the fact there is such a thing as "objectively good design"
gonna ramble for a moment and tell you kids a lil story. i once got Breath of the Wild on PC and I modded that bitch up, one of the mods I got was an almost complete game overhaul, reworked all the shrines, etc. was very impressive in some areas, was dogshit in the actual "game" design field. I went into a shrine and dropped down off a cliff, then went through the area in front of me. eventually I got stuck because there was a locked door I couldn't open, after 20 minutes of running around, I found the switch. It was under the cliff I dropped off of, so my back was always to it. This is bad design, because you aren't supposed to guide the players eyes/attention away from what they're supposed to be doing/need to do. think about Mario games, and the trail of coins they do, you never see a trail of coin leading into a spiked wall or anything.
the point of my rambling is game design is significantly more complex than just "a good game is if you like the game" as phil claims. basically fun games are games you subjectively enjoy, good games are games that are objectively well designed, you can have fun with a badly designed game, you can hate an objectively good game as well.