Without perception objectivity does not exist. Without men objectivity (rational criteria) is a big fat nothing. Philosophically you have to make the distinction between reality and objectivity, but let's cut that discussion. You said yourself that there were many components in games which could not be evaluated objectively ; the ones that are objective are the one that function. Functionality has nothing with good or bad ; something that function, functions ; it can function well or badly, but that says nothing about the thing being good or bad. Good or bad, in fact, these are essentially moral concepts ; something that functions very well can obviously be very bad ; these concepts have nothing to do with aesthetics. Art is not good or bad, it's interesting, or not. But games aren't art. They still are, in a way, art, however, so you're not saving yourself by trying to limit yourself to the functional components of the product. At any rate, esentially when someone says everything is subjective, they mean : we can't talk about it. This is obviously refuted by the fact that people are talking about it because, precisely, it's considered "subjective". So we can talk about it, but everything we say about it does not matter because it is be subjective, so we should stop talking about it. Why? Should we say things only when they are objective? But aren't they always? How is language subjective? Is it subjective like perception? How is what I'm saying purely subjective, if you can apprehend it like an object, like language? You can go on and on about this. The only real problem being : I want to feel validated when I talk about this. Validated how, by who, for what? Fuck off, huh?
