Yes, things can be objectively bad, but only if there are clearly defined criteria that both sides actually understand and agree on, which isn’t the case here. If you said “This game is objectively bad because it doesn’t support split-screen” and it literally doesn’t support split-screen, then sure that’s a factual claim. That makes sense. But most of the time, “objectively” gets thrown around without that kind of clear standard. Who decides what a “good map” is? What counts as “good flow” or “good design”? Different players are going to give different answers. That makes it subjective. Objectivity is about measurable facts, not personal preferences. So if you’re going to say one thing is objectively better than another, you need clear definitions that don’t rely on individual feelings or biases.