While I do agree with intolerance to subjectivity, gaming in itself is a subjective activity. Let me explain.
Grace said above:
We're gamers because we play games and
do great at them! Let's show the world
that they should be coming to us to
figure out how to become a better
player, how to get past obstacles
Unfortunately, this is not the point of being a gamer for many gamers out there. Just like the point of hiking is not always to exercise, many people do it purely for scenery, for many people the point of gaming is not to be great at them, by far. It is to enjoy a particular process. For clarity sake, I'll be calling these non-sports gamers "scenery gamers", where scenery stands for all things non-action (art, music, story).
Gaming is a huge field, and not one person or subset of people can take gaming and stick it into their way of thinking about it. This stackexchange site is not a walktrhough site, not a guide site, it's a gaming site. If it was one of the "nots" above — it would've been a narrow community of gamers who are playing for a single subjective reason. In that case it shouldn't be taking up all of gaming namespace in its name. It should instead be called "problem solving in games" or something.
Let's try drill down to the point of this rant. There are people who play to be great at games, and there are people who play to enjoy the game like a good book, where if their character is always doing things right — they don't feel right. So what? We are looking for objective stuff, right? We can't help this other group. The objective questions can only be found asked by the former subset of gamers, not the latter. But before we completely condemn the "scenery" gamers, let's try to ask ourselves:
What are the objective problems "scenery gamers" may need help with?
For scenery gamers, the real problems they encounter are exactly things like "looking for a game with a set of characteristics", or "I love western theme, help me find more". These are real problems that need to be solved, exactly because there is no way for these players to find what they're looking for, except by means of crowdsourcing ungoogleable questions. As a problem solving site, I think stackexchange needs to help solve the problem for broader community of gamers. It's ok that some of these problems are in danger of turning into subjective flood fest. We can always moderate them down/out. However, if somebody felt like they've finally found some people who understood the problem and do well at providing solution (like I did here http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/2534/deep-atmospheric-imagination-driven-non-action-games-of-the-past-decades/2537#2537), closing it down makes no sense. Just because some problems are harder to express/answer than others, doesn't mean they stop being problems needed to be solved.
In conclusion, by focusing on gameplay problems, you are making a subjective choice of which kind of problems this site will resolve, you are removing all other aspects of gaming from "gaming"-themed stackexchange, and you are narrowing the gaming community to a very dry subset of what it could've been. This is not stackoverflow, where all you need is to resolve programming problems. In fact, I can argue that questions such as this on stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258/plain-english-explanation-of-big-o are very much akin to my question linked above. Games are far more than a set of obstacles. We need to broaden our definition of "problem" because the "game" is itself a broad concept. I'd like to urge you to try and stretch objectivity to accommodate the broadness of gaming.
Well, at least I tried.