I disagree. There is here clear intent in implying that this game is objectively bad. The OP even added "prove me wrong", implying it's bad beyond opinions.
On top of that there are posts that are actually objective and in others people have the freedom to imply either. But if you decree that every post's objectivity or subjectivity is contextual, it will increase confusion and ambiguity. There is a reason why human languages are structured in order to convey an idea, notion or concept in as ACCURATE a way as possible.
Otherwise anyone could say anything without the need to take any responsibility about what they say. Sorry if this reply is a bit abstract but I believe it's necessary to demonstrate that words need to be carefully chosen in order to take responsibility and to allow both defense of one's point and critical rejoinders.
Funny you pointing that because then you would have to put the same burden on every single one that were putting beyond opinion that the game is great.
From all he wrote for me was very clear that it is why he think like that and not that there is written essays proving it.
You have to always take responsibility in what you say, that doesn't change opinion to fact. Because doesn't matter how much someone believe something or say it is a fact it doesn't change to a fact because of belief. And yes almost anything said here are opinions unless proven to be fact with data or evidence.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."