Well, therein lies the problem. "Best" is intrinsically subjective.
We joke on the show about "smiles per hour" as a metric for enjoyment of a game. I only played Super Mario 3d World for around 10 hours, but was literally smiling for the majority of it. Ergo, it had a very high "smiles per hour" rating.
I deeply enjoy playing Destiny, and it definitely scratches the game theory/OCD parts of my brain, but it drives me NUTS sometimes. I've also played it probably 30x longer. This gives it a lower SPH.
This creates an interesting exercise. Which do I value more? The intensity of the enjoyment or the total amount of it? If there was a 5 hour game I enjoyed more than Super Mario 3d World, would I call it "better"?
If I review the games I played year by year, and pick out the ones I would have missed the most if I hadn't gotten them, I almost always lean toward the "total amount of enjoyment".
To extend your food metaphor, is the ONE meal by the Michelin chef better than one meal at McDonalds? by most sane people, yes.
But what Kor and I are positing is something more like: "Would you rather have one meal by a Michelin chef, or a year's worth of meals at the diner down the street (which makes a pretty mean chicken and waffles, but the pies aren't that great) with your friends?"