Yes, i do understand getting to such an extend would make it seemingly subjective. However, its quite unsatisfactory to merely deem such actions a trial&error method. One look at the Apple or Android store and you can clearly see the lack of vision in my opinion. To much replicas and to little invention. But i guess in the end, those who re-invent will get payed off. Having a solid design standard is perhaps to idealistic?
I think it becomes more clear when you lay down some goals/rules.
The rules of a healthy development:
1) It's all about making a game and releasing it. Everything not leading to this result is an excessive fluff and can (and should) be cut down. All methodologies, theories, ideals, documents, techniques are to be judged against this premise.
2) A game needs to be fun to play and/or bring money to the developer (it can be argued which is more important, also just one of these condition being met is sometimes perfectly sufficient - but not meeting at least one of these means a failure of the development process).
3) There are no exceptions to the two rules above :)
So, to answer some of your questions:
"its quite unsatisfactory to merely deem such actions a trial&error method" - does trial & error allow you to finish a fun & playable game? If the answer is yes, it's perfectly satisfactory.
"Having a solid design standard is perhaps to idealistic" - does solid design allow you to finish a fun & playable game or is it just some artificial ideal you imposed on yourself? If it's an ideal discard it. If it's a tool to meet your goal follow it.