I mean... I've been saying the same thing all along. If you want to go on thinking that other people's opinions on what's fun for them is more important than your opinion of whats fun for you, that's your preogative. I just don't accept that.

Let's call it quits. In no occurrence did I state it was about the fun factor. Of course, this cannot be reasoned with facts. But this is deeper than what you make out to be and frankly, I want to move on lol.

As I said, I do not indulge any claims that were made regarding Zelda VS Horizon. And never did I state that my tastes are above yours or anyone, if that's what you imply. I said, with a bigger sample, you can figure a more cohesive leaning, a leading indicator of what is generally appreciated and what isn't. This is the closest you can come to an impartial opinion, without EVER being 100% objective in it because of the margin of error and, of course, the fact that tastes are in nature.

It's in no way pointless to argue opinions as long as you present your opinion and your reasons to have it. Or hell, even just your opinion by itself can stand.

That doesn't mean anyone gets to claim that their subjective opinion on a game's merits is in any way objective. That's what we're arguing here. 

An objective statement is a statement of fact. It does not care for your or anyone else's opinion. Its inherent to the object (that's the reason why it's called objective). Subjective relates to the subject making the opinion (so the name subjective).

Zelda can be subjectively great or terrible, but it's objectively a Nintendo game that plays on Switch and WiiU.

Deeper than what I make it out to be? On what grounds do you have to say that? Up until this conversation you thought video game critics were accredited. You thought video game review sites had to apply to be certified by metacritic. Are you sure it's deeper than what I make it out to be, or is it that it's actually not as deep as you think it is?

Anyone else feel a little throw-uppy when people tout Metacritic scores as some kind of absolute metric?  

Pretty much what I wanted to say.

there's no percentage of objectivity... something is either objective or subjective... there's nothing that's merely 50% objective lol

and on your first point, I wasn't atributing any specific opinion of yours on the merits of either game, i just replied to your first comment to me because it actually seemed a worthwile discussion to have, rather than debate any deluded fanboy on how much better an unreleased game is compared to X, Y or Z game :D

Well yeah, this... cannot be reasoned in any way.

Edit: In any complex situation there is always a way to claim that any process is not completely logical and impartial. People may come to a consensus that the process is logical and impartial, but that doesn't make it objectively so.

So the answer is that it is possible to objectively adhere to a process, but that the creation of the process itself is never strictly objective. The best you can hope for when creating a process is that it is generally thought to be fair, hence the review system. But that's just me... I think the review system is not entirely broken.

Nier Automata, Nioh, Persona 5, Knack 2, Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Gran Turidmo Sport, Crash Bandicoot nsane trilogy, Wipeout Omega collection. It's rather easy making lists. In the end Playstation fans will prefer Playstation and Nintendo fans will prefer Nintendo.

Just to shut this idiotic conversation.

No collective opinions can't be taken as objective or fact no matter the size of the sample.

If you picked 1 Million people (or even physicist) at Einstein time before the relativity or photoelectric effect or quantum physics or anything like that they would all say it was wrong yet a single person was right. Facts and science doesn't bend to majority or minority, but to what truly is demonstrable (and that can change after sometime).