People are DDoSing Jim Sterling

Wasn't Jim Sterling on a podcast recently, and said something to the effect of (paraphrasing): Someone is going to give BotW a 7/10, either Polygon or himself, and the internet is going to go nuts?

I don't know. The whole thing feels staged. We already know that devout Zelda fans lose their shit when any of the games gets a low score. Even low scores for Skyward Sword got some pretty harsh reactions. So giving this game a low score and poking the hornet's nest seems like an easy way to get publicity. The turnaround to putting around a video about the whole situation was pretty damn fast, as well.

It could be nothing, but it just feels too convenient.

So Polygon wrote a article about the whole review kerfuffle. and this quote putt me off the wrong way. "I really have to ask what the hell Metacritic is doing aggregating the score of a self-published writer, instead of one writing under the banner of a publication." So there saying Jim's opion doesn't matter cause he isn't with some big corporation. Did these guys ever heard about Roger Ebert ?

The blind negativity is as stupid as the blind positivity surrounding this game. I wasn't around to see the 8.8 unfold, but jesus almost everything surrounding this game is embarrassing on a level I haven't seen before. I get that it's probably kids and teens that'll also be embarrassed by their behavior someday (at least my continued faith in humanity demands that I believe that), but goddamn scouring the internet for muted, honest opinions about this game has been miserable.

You clearly haven't heard him talk about Boglins.

@viking_funeral: The stupidest thing about this "drama" is that 7/10 isn't a low score, and that he likes the game a lot. Honestly if he did it for the views, then good on him for milking the rage of the pissants who'd get this upset over a metacrtitic thing.

@viking_funeral: I don't think Jim has a reason to drum up fake controversy. Obviously, I can't read people's hearts and minds so I could be wrong, but Jim is one of the more trustworthy voices if you ask me. Divisive sure, but still trustworthy. And I say that because he praises and criticizes everyone and everything when he feels they deserve it. It's not like his opinion is always vastly different than the majority. He's not always trying to drum up controversy. Hell, BotW is the first time in a long time he's "wildly" (I put that in quotes because, as he keeps saying, he likes the game) disagreed with his peers.

On the topic of the podcast though, a few weeks ago his co-host mentioned the whole weapon durability thing (among other things) before he started playing it and even then it was obvious how much he was not a fan of those systems. And I think on last week's show, maybe the week before, even after he started playing he made his feelings on those same things very clear again. So again I don't think this is some ass-pull. As someone whose been keeping up with the podcast, his score doesn't surprise me at all tbh.

@babychoochoo: Jim Sterling is the same guy who gave The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD an 8.8/10. That's a little more than a wink towards situations like these.

I'm looking at his other Zelda reviews...

• Hyrule Warriors - 9.5/10
• Triforce Heroes - 8/10
• Majora's Mask 3D - 9.5/10

It just seems.... like I said, very convenient. A worse game than Triforce Heroes? Than Hyrule Warriors?

I mean, whatever. Review scores are mostly meaningless to informed gamers and not a good judge of whether someone will like a game or to even compare games, and people that would choose to DDoS the Jimquisition over something like this are either hateful idiots, playing right into his hands, and/or both. That said, I just can't help but wonder if both sides are being played on this one: the people who would get upset over this score and the people who would get upset at people for getting upset at the score.

Not that I generally care about reviews, but from what I've seen...BOTW doesn't look like something that that justifies the 10/10's across the board.

Whatever though, it's all just opinion. These Angry Zelda fanatics just need to suck it up, move on and carry on enjoying the game.

I don't have time to look at his review at the moment, but in a couple videos i saw before now he stated he'd "much rather be playing BotW" and that he was enjoying it, and if middle of the road is 5/10, then a 7 is a good game worth playing.
I haven't played the game, but have seen a lot of it as the entire community rushes to cover games like this, so far i'd give it a 6.

I mean, it's closer to a 7/10 than a 10/10.

How pityful to try to breaks somebodys access to a server because they disagree with somebody.

IMHO I think that Jim Sterling is sometimes hit or miss and you could even argue that hes probably too cynical for some people but his views are always honest. I'm one of those people who doesn't watch him because he seems to step over some devs every so often. But everyone does it to some degree, it all depends who you believes deserves hate, which is a nonsense spiral anyway because it never stop and is counter productive.

Most people hate on stuff for entertainment value anyway and Jim Sterling is one of those people who either trash games or praise them in their videos, at least from what I know. In my opinion a more nuanced approach such as a 7/10 seems OK to me.

Also Metacritic is a terrible place. Its good for costumer care but on the other hand reducing a game to just one big number while ignoring the context of the review reason for a quick "is this game I like actually worth it?" confirmation bias check, which isn't always a good thing.

You can't say fanatic without saying fan and I think thats sad. I'm a fanboy on a few games also and I feel ashamed when I read up on people behaving badly just because a reviewer they like approached the game differently. Kinda like Backseat gaming but with reviews.

This is silly. In no ways are the things you wrote objective at all. You merely state things from an objectivist angle, which isn't excactly scientifically objective. And even that is merely a barebones approach to objectivism which doesn't hold any foothold under regular scrutiny.

Not only that, I never read reviews in which the things you've told inside your table happen abd how do you measure Nostalgia subjectively? On the contrair, you don't even state how you could apply this to objectivism yet just deny its existence by saying "None". This shows how deeply flawed the logic you're applying is.

At the very best, you applied simple math to the first thesis but in no way are you describing the value or impact of average frame race compared with the result of framepacing (what if framepacing is the result of non-applied form of delta timing and how detrimental to the gameplay is it comparatively than lets say, SLI issues?)

All people who take objectivity in games seriously do create bad reviews though that say just as much as the "subjective" ones but worse.

You made Descartes cry. You talk about objectivism but your approach is entirely subjective in nature. You can't call yourself from a objectivist school of thought while adhereing to subjective principles or approach the topic from a subjective angle like you did.

Ask yourself this: "Why would my school of thought be superior to others and may that be because I haven't thought as much about it as other who do not follow or partially adhere to my school of thought?"

EDIT: I would even go as far as say that I certainly believe that the Subjective approach to art in general has been way more fruitful than lets say calling a spade a spade. Video Games cannot evolve if you don't apply subjectivism to it, otherwise all you do is treating art in a vacuum which it does not deserve. Last but not least a objective or objectivist review does devaluate itself to just its concluding score, which does the costumer a disservice because you usually need the text to understand the score, this isn't needed when the score has already been measured objectively.

Also added a few bits of text here and there and fixed bad grammar.

@viking_funeral: Jim has stated on multiple occasions his love for Dynasty Warriors games. I genuinely think he really liked the Zelda one.

I haven't played Triforce Heroes or Breath of the Wild so I can't really speak on those.

@geraltitude: No worries at all, I just figured I'd include you in the conversation since it appeared that you were responding - my bad. As a response to your question, I believe @eurobum and@dray2k have partially summed up why viewing subjectivity alone as non-objectivity or claiming there can be no objectivity in the assessment of a game's quality to be flawed.

However, as a more outright response, I did point out controls as a very objective factor to assess in a game. An objective quality. If you're really willing to make the argument that a game that refuses to respond to player input, or that has poor input response, or completely throws out all precepts of good input/control design isn't objectively *bad* in this way (I gave Superman 64 as a common example)...well then I'm not sure there's much to discuss here. At that rate, there's nothing that is objective since everything is (with this logic) subjective perception. If that's your view then that's fair, but there are no grounds on which we can discuss this topic then.

It's important to remember that games aren't special. Like a movie or a book has objective qualities (how it's shot, how it is written, how it is acted etc.), a game too has objective qualities. And even beyond that, subjectivity has become a description for our own limitations to quantitatively measure some aspect of experience. As a universal truth everything can be measured, the only question is whether we have the knowledge or ability to do so yet.

I wonder if his 8.8 rating for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD was a wink and nod towards @jeff Original 8.8 gate scandal.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.

I don't want to come in here and just echo exactly the same thoughts but, in short:

I dislike Jim Sterling, I think he's very precious about his hard-edged tendencies, I dislike the way he presents himself like a cartoonish larger-than-life character, and I am not bowled over by his writing.

That said, I don't go out of my way to shout about it, to him or to anyone else. Attacking someone on the internet, this DDoS stuff, the death threats... It's all terrible. He doesn't deserve that. No one does.

But just to reiterate, I do super dislike him, and I don't think for a minute that it never crossed his mind that he would get some attention for reviewing this unanimously-received Zelda game lower than people expected. I don't think it's some kind of 'conspiracy' against the game; he seems to enjoy it despite the issues he has... But come on, the man is an internet personality. He understands how people tend to react (especially given recent events).

Anyway, hope this doesn't come off as dickish. Don't DDoS me.

The problem is communication. It is still subjective, but our brains parse it as objective truth because its a binary option.

• Either the controls do work
• Or they don't

The lack of destinction creates the illusion that this is objective, while the truth is that the control scheme and its qualities doesn't determine the objectivenes of the quality (you cannot prove X with X alone, you need to break it down to further factors so you can analyse them with comparative objects), rather it does merely underline it.

The game still does run even if you completly remove the controls. You may not play it anymore but you can still look at it, and even that is subjective in a way that not every human sees things similarly. You could only argue about objective truth is the control scheme is based upon axomic principles. Otherwise it will cause and create subjective measurements that need to be valued as objectiveness, which causes the entire "objective narrative" to crumble.

In simplier phrasing, people telling others that "the sky is blue" is easily countered with the question "what kind of blue is it?". The sky simply being blue can both be true and not. Because it depends not on the color alone, but rather on the subjective perception of what people think when they say what they think off as a objective truth.

One of the most well research and founded formulas for a century has been scientifically proven just recently for instance. Theoretical science is one of the many arms of the objective school of thoughts that is most unsure about what "objective truth" really is. Thats exactly why people there actually push themselves further to discover actual real (?) truth in things.

EDIT: I did not want to make a nonsense "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" argument. Rather I implore everyone reading this into asking yourself "is subjective truth less real?". After all, Video Games are subjective in nature and therefore we need to approach them with this in mind. Being ultimately objective creates a disservice for everyone, and it also lessens the fun in having discussions about objectivity ;)!

@dray2k: Yes, the reality is we are working with axioms (game design principles themselves are axioms) because without some base of what we could call "objectively good design" the whole thing would be a mess. Which is partially what I'm getting at here. Denying that we can't objectively assess some aspect of any game is the equivalent of tossing out game design itself. Is there emotionally driven aspects of game assessment? Sure there are. But like a car, it has to run first before you can even get to the point of talking about hot it makes you "feel".

@rpjeff Oh trust me, I think many people (especially here) believe exactly what you do about Jim. I find the idea that people laugh down the idea of "click-bait" as being ridiculous when it's really such a simple and effective way of driving traffic with some amount of conversion happening from that traffic. Based on his reviews, articles and videos I really find it laughable how anyone could suggest that he doesn't knowingly (or subconsciously at this rate) put out janky reviews and opinions just because it drums up controversy and attention.

I have no real feelings good or bad towards Jim Sterling so his personality and or how he conducts himself matters very little to me. But as someone who has never played a Legend of Zelda game the criticisms he has for Breath of the Wild seem rather valid.

I will admit, an open world Zelda game that incorporates game systems that help ground the player into that fictional world seems really fun. But from what I've read / watched about the execution of these systems, nintendo kinda dropped the ball a little. 7/10 sounds reasonable to me, honestly I feel the only reason why this game is getting 10/10 from everyone is because the gaming journalism community as a whole are all a bit bias towards Zelda games.

I dunno if I was in his position I'd probably be docking the final score for the same things. From what I can tell that poor excuse for a weapon degradation system the game has deserves to eat a whole point off the score. I for one typically enjoy weapon degradation systems in games, but usually I get some kind of indication as to when the weapon is going to break on me. To have the weapon break randomly on you without warning irritates the fuck out of me.

@emumford: This isn't really the thread for me to do a full defence of BotW but the game absolutely warns you when a weapon is getting near breaking. It's definitely not random.

hahaha I should really post under the influence more, probably the most responses I've had to anything in years. Must of been that dope table. Nobody posts tables!

I don't have a lot of time to respond to all of you in full but just wanted to say @wetracoon, @dray2, @eurobum I did enjoy reading your responses and there is some interesting stuff in there. That said, sometimes I feel some of you just want to talk philosophy without actually responding to what I'm saying... these thoughts are interesting, but I feel out of context. My view is very simple, and I'd really love to talk about this in a simple way. I heard once a famous mathematician say that if you can't explain what you know to a 7 year old, you don't actually understand it! I like this mentality a lot.

Allow me to confirm some of your worst fears and put my perspective as such:

Human beings, as far as I know, can only just barely gesture at "facts" by way of common agreement (we agree a book has pages and words on the pages, though the definitions of all three elements, same as any, are always up for grabs).

Though we can gesture at these elements (if only vaguely), our relationship to them is beyond unknowable and inconsistent. This applies to EVERYTHING. :)

Reviews, could, for sure, provide a list of elements, as much as possible, and use common agreement to conextualize them. But this to me is more a review supplement. That said, I think we know enter the realm of What you are looking for in a review? A game review could certainly be simply listed as:

• World Map is __ size
• # of levels __
• Average Framerate is __
• # of Enemies __
• Is there weapon degradation? (Y/N)
• Can you save anytime? (Y/N)

If you think these are bad examples, give me some good ones. If you think there are no examples, then... you agree with me! :P Anyways, you could go on and on with this list, trying to itemize whatever elements we can quantify and point at. But we can't really say anything about them beyond that. Because, again, no one can tell anyone how to feel about X, if they can even describe X accurately in the first place.

Again, Superman 64.

The framerate sucks. What does that mean? It means that A) we agree on some concept of what framerate is, and how to measure it and B) we've measured a number of similar games and come to the conclusion that S64 rings in below average. But so what? Did the player care? There's a big difference between knowing my girlfriend bought a blue dress and how she feels about that blue dress. What is the point of the review? I think this is what we are all dancing around. Because there is no such thing as review! duh! We have millions of documents out there calling themselves reviews, and all entirely built and approached differently. So, let me put it this way: the only things I care about when I read a review is how the person playing the game feels about it. There are many, many other sources I can go to where I can pull technical information out about the game. The review for me is a matter of curiosity, that's all. I would never, ever believe that a review I am reading is somehow, in any way, actually endemic of the quality of anything.

What this whole Jim issue says to me is simply that some people want a factsheet - however hard it is to assemble - they want it. And they want that factsheet to somehow weigh the review. Something like 60 FPS means a 10/10 in the framerate score and 30 fps is a ceiling of 8/10. Meanwhile, drops will lower it, so 60 FPS game that is 90% consistent would have a score of 9/10. You would then combine the framerate score with the loading score with the line of distance score with the etc, etc until you have the PERFORMANCE score. This isn't a stupid idea to me, but, it's not what I'm looking for in reviews. If developers reviewed games, we might have some writers capable of building an interesting system like this. I wouldn't believe it told me what games are good and bad, but still, interesting.

I... huh?

That's exactly what I meant when I said that it was 'more than a wink,' because that was clearly what the review score was referring to. Jim Sterling usually works on a 1-10 scale with 0.5 increments.

Or did I miss some clever joke?

Oh, somebody disagrees with me on the Internet? Huh.

Script kiddies will be script kiddies.

@viking_funeral: Reading comprehension is hard when you haven't had coffee.

Man, there really are a lot of unstable adolescents on the internets. At least I hope they are adolescents. I don't get getting so angry over a review. There are more important things happening out in the world. Also 7/10 is not necessarily a bad score it's just that review scores has gotten so ridiculous that you can't give a popular game under 9/10, sometimes even that makes people angry because it isn't a 10/10, without risking a lynching.

In my old man voice: I don't get the internet.

As someone who is head over heels for everything I've seen of BotW, this is incredibly stupid.

@teddie: I find the Boglin videos oddly enjoyable, guess it's a nostalgic thing and I'd feel the same if it were a video on monsters in my pocket. His whole person is incredibly tedious apart from that however.

War never changes.

@eurobum: Absolutely it's not as simple as explaining how you felt, hence my stance on explaining WHY you felt that way.

I'm not sure why you've separated "more than the sum of it's parts" and "being analytical", or describing your experience with a game and arguing with someone over said game. I see a lot of "you did this when you should've done that" where neither thing prevented the other. Explaining to someone why a game made you feel the way that you describe feeling is a jumping off point to any number of discussions without having to pretend that pros and cons mathematically increased or decreased your enjoyment.

"You say: "My favorite games of all time aren't the ones that do the most number of interesting things or have the least number of flaws." - but how do you know if you don't count."---How do I know that my favorite games aren't simply the ones with the greatest number of pros? I think "existing in my own body" sounds like I'm insulting you but I'm honestly not sure what kind of answer you're expecting here. Are we on the same page that not devoting sections of your review to something you didn't find important or relevant to your experience isn't the same thing as ignoring them completely?

"Basically reviewers who just describe their experience with the game, give up on wanting to say anything true, perceptive or intelligent. But it is only through the rigors of argument, that the truth emerges in a courtroom, as well as the effort and discipline to be impartial, neutral, sober, fair, prepared etc."--- Again, I'm not sure why you're implying some kind of connection between describing your experience with a game and whether or not you say anything true, perceptive, or intelligent, or that it somehow excludes a rigorous argument. I'm wondering if you missed the part of my earlier post where I mentioned "why" being part of this whole review process.

Kind of neutral on Sterling but I would like to share a "dang kids get off my lawn" anecdote.

I remember a magical time in the 90s, were video game news media was relegated to print, during a time when mass commercial internet was in its infancy. In those days, reviews would come out in a magazine and were used as a waypoint to gauging how you would commit to a game. Sometimes it could hype you up or deter you. Typically though, the only way to truly grasp enjoyment of a game was to try it yourself. I can not remember during this time period the sheer amount of virtriol consumers have for games journalists. Maybe it's just me, but review scores are a take it or leave it, not a decree on what I choose to pay money on. It's shameful these people would go out of their way to harass someone over a video game review.

@lv4monk: I really like your courtroom analogy, because in a court not just the facts but also intent matters. The court's task is much more difficult of course, which is why the roles are divided between all those parties. It's been done for reviews before: two reviewers one is the accuser and the other the advocate, except in court someone is charged only when there is enough evidence for a case, but reviews have to (?) be written. The best verdict for a game should not be 10/10 but "not guilty" of all these unethical, dodgy things that some devs have perfected to an art, like gambling, wasting one's time, exploiting weaknesses, misrepresenting, misinforming, overcharging. Video games have always been a kind of guilty pleasure, a vice if you will. So there is another scale, another dimension, another ethical score that better reviews in a better world could give.

More to your point, it's an interesting question to ask why something made feel you a certain way. It isn't necessarily a subjective question, but also very difficult. What I really wanted to convey is that a reviewer or a player doesn't know anything beyond his initial impression, which is why this whole procedure of pros and cons exists, not necessarily to precisely evaluate a game, but to discover something, anything to say about the game that is true and significant that isn't opinion.

I truly believe that an approach to a review like "I really like this game, here is why." is basically destined to fail, because of bad methodology, starting from subjectivity and searching for rationalizations. Interestingly the reversed approach "I dislike the game, here is why." can work to produce something interesting, if the reviewer remains honest and really tries to make his criticism stick by highlighting bad choices or presenting proof, without reaching and resorting to hateful or dismissive rhetoric. There is no built in expectation for compliments to be true, after all. I suspect that's where a lot of perfect-score-fluff comes from.

Triple A games are made to be widely liked, and they are focus tested to make sure people like them. If someone believes -and most people do- that he or she is a special snowflake for liking something... well there is no Santa, either. How a game achieves mass appeal, is a rather technical, non personal question.

He should have listened to the updated guidelines about acceptable review scores.

I also finally came along to read the review in full, in no ways I disagree with any of his points, yet I would still consider the game 9/10 or 10/10. Or in other words, his opinion didn't change mine. I even kinda feel like that I want the game even more now.

I think you have a point with the car analogy if you ignore the fact that games and cars are almost entirely unrelated to each other, furthermore the common mistake is that people create bias (this can go pro or contra against the object, you can't always be sure that a positive review is reflected positively by the one reading the review) automatically. Furthermore, feeling is a process and cannot be seen as an absolute, doing otherwise is nonsense.

We seem to write past each other. What you wrote is Objectivity butwhat you mean however is Subjective Truthfulness, which is not the same thing. In no way I've stated nor implied that we cannot assess some aspects of any game with truthfulness, but this question is up to the reviewer to fill and is not our job. We can of course critique a review for any reason, but thats another entirely subjective thing. I know I'm arguing semanticism here in a way, but people cannot want objectivity when subjectivity can also be hold as truth and to the same degree also.

You can always argue that a review is true to itself but you cannot argue that a review is objective, since that goes againgst the core principles of art (regarding the nature of the writing, not the game - the game does not care how you see it but the writing does since the writing exists to formulate the thoughts of the reviewer regarding the game).

That you wrote "some aspect" is enough for me to prove this point since objectivism, just like subjectivism, is a extreme. This means you can't both be objective and subjective since these are opposing schools of thought (though, the question if you can have both may be a different but even more important topic). If you start making it into "degrees of objectiveness" then you become automatically subjective and thus flawed to the core ideas about an absolute objective truth. If you want to argue however that you can have both link objectiveness and subjectiveness together to work in harmony, be my guest. I think thats a very important discussion to have for game costumers and reviewers alike.

"I think therefore I am" still holds true. A absolute statement, but still subjective in its entirety.

Its all about exchange of ideas for me. If people want to start doing these subjectiveness vs. objectiveness internet wars as a penis measurement contest I usually bail out. If you want to know a bit more about the topic, I can link to to some books on Amazon to read you up about so you understand where I'm coming from exactly. Then we can start having a debate about it. But I can also give you examples of the german school of game reviewing, that do indeed provide "objectiveness sheets" in their reviews when it comes to technical aspects of a game (example).

Note that the first comment there is a person angry that the table may be wrong. The question whether or not people think objectiveness is or isn't truthfully percieved by the subjective nature of the human mind is another question.

@geraltitude: First and foremost, sorry that I called the stuff you wrote as "silly" (it isn't silly, I felt like your table was counterproductive to the discussion about the schools of subjectivity/truthfulness and objectivity/truthfulness). It was not my intention to degrade your argument before doing my initial response. That was extremly short sighted from me and I sincerly appologize.

Anyway...

A obvious problem with it is that you can't discuss these things without trying to tackle the root causes first (i.e. talking about the philosophical systems that define subjectivity or in this case, the question of objectivity).

Otherwise we would begin to talk past each other. I obviously see this "internet fight" from a different angle than most. I don't care about peoples bias about truth perception. All I want is to people to move further in this. A lot of people do not, thats why we have silly things like fanboywars for decades. As some smart duder jokingly wrote here "War never changes", unfortunately holds to be true.

Anyway, to your core points. I necissarily do not disagree with you. The point of any review is ultimately costumer advocacy and simple confirmation bias confirmation. Confirmation bias confirmation is by the way partially the reason why people only look at the score instead of the review when they like a certain produced and are biased to it.

People wanting "fact" sheets for a car cannot answer the question of "but how does it drive?". The response would be "according to the data, it should drive good." In no way I would be statisfied with such a response. Either way, reviewers are always free to justify the score in a review - or not. In the topic of Jim Sterling I can conclude that he does phrase his opinions concisely. In no way I felt that his wording was unreasonable or unjustified to the game itself.

I don't know if this response will statisfy because I can't come to a propper conclusion myself but there you go!

I'm with you on that. I really really hope the majority of this nonsense is coming from kids or teens who haven't figured out how to separate their ego/emotions over a thing they like and the fact that someone else can like/not like that thing in a different manner. I really hope there is few people participating in this behavior over the age of, I don't know, 25?
Sometimes I wish you could just filter the internet by age. Like a family diner, the kids have their table and the adults have theirs.
Unfortunately it's a messy free for all.

Think that's part of why I like the GB forums so much, there are some young folk here for sure, but everyone seems to have a good head on their shoulders for the most part.

@zolroyce: Something about full thickening of the pre-frontal cortex not happening, on average, until the age of 25. I know I blame all my stupid decisions on that at least.

@dray2k said:

Subjectivity has NOTHING* to do with perception, it's about emotion. You fundamentally misunderstand and misuse the term, but you seem to arrive (Do you?) at a kind of an important personal insight, indeed there can be no truth without the five senses.

You are not alone! This term has been hijacked by the whole postmodernist philosophy bullshit, hence the terrible example in the second (Google) definition. Postmodernism misused relativity and the uncertainty principle to say: if everything involves (allegedly) uncertain and relative perception, nothing is true, everything is permitted. - Something you said you wanted to avoid, yet didn't.

Do other people see red just as I see red? - Yes, they do. (This took prisms, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and anatomy to prove. )

But what if they are colorblind or synesthetic? - They are the proverbial exception, and they know it.

subjectivity [sʌbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti] noun: subjectivity; plural noun: subjectivities

• quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. "he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
• the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world. "the subjectivity of human perception"

*If Google says (in an example) there is a link between perception and subjectivity, surely this must be true. This is where common sense comes in, human perception can be subjective if it is tainted by emotion (etc.), so a blue sky isn't just blue but friendly, too.

However it's not hard to prove that things don't just exist in our mind, but also outside of it, like on an HD display, which is why we call them objects and can speak about them objectively, by making an effort to avoid feelings, tastes and opinions (see first definition).

Objectivity is not an absolute, even a casual conversation can be sufficiently objective.

I cannot place the fallacy(ies) exactly, you do equivocate Objectivism and objectivity for one. Your whole reasoning hinges on the false premise, that things need to be exact and absolute to be true or objective, when actually what's needed is a bit of logic, sufficient context and some emotional distance.

I didn't know he existed before this happened.