There are three points to address here. Two come from your question here, and one from your comments on another answer. I'm going to skim over the merits of your individual question and focus more on the issues of our rules and following them. Mostly because it seems there is still some debate as to where your question sits.
Point the first: The question wasn't considered off-topic because "it didn't relate to games", as it very much did. The fact is that shopping recommendations are off-topic regardless of being related to gaming. That's why it gets its own explicit clause in the FAQ. So, please understand that as why we might close something that is very much about games.
As far as subjectivity and localized nature goes, it's a very brief thing meant to illustrate basics of the issue. The related blog post helps illustrate it better - it's about learning and the comprehensiveness of both question and answer. In the end, we're not a shopping plaza for people to look for the next stuff to buy.
Now, as to orthodox rules following and why it is important to revise questions even if the answers may be the same... this is exactly the kind of reason that I provided this answer clarifying our game recommendations rule. I'll also provide this parent Q&A post, which I had joined in closing and has a similar situation as yours.
Presentation is important, especially when skirting the edge of unacceptable question types. Sometimes, a question will have the appearance of a shopping recommendation, but somewhat fill out more like a comparison question. The answers probably wouldn't change that much by revising the question, yet this revision is important. To you as a question asker, it won't necessarily affect what happens except possibly pitting you through frustration.
But not having a question that amounts to "Help me buy stuff" does two things. It prevents people from coming here in the first place to ask about it, because we won't turn up when people search for shopping advice. And it prevents people from vainly trying to justify true shopping advice questions when they ask them. Broken windows are annoying and problematic to deal with, especially long term. This is why presentation is important - the less we have to deal with broken windows, the better the experience will be for everyone in the long term.
"Better suited" versus "specifically designed" also introduces a better measure of objectivity. Our ultimate goal as a site is to provide authoritative answers, but our "authority" isn't based on the background of our users. It's based on the quality of our content, the essence of the knowledge itself. Our answers are based on what we know, not what we think or believe. They're answers, not opinions or ideas. Opinion very much weighs less on the site's scale, and just as before it's important to keep people away from asking about opinion.
But to get to why these get closed - it's not always easy to salvage questions. Sometimes you can just remove a "best" to make something a better question. But that isn't always the winning result. The question may still be faulty at that point - it may require the author to retool the question to something more useful. Subjectivity isn't always the culprit. Sometimes the question is simply of a class that doesn't belong. This is the case with a reparable shopping recommendation; the question must be transformed into something that belongs.
As it were, blindly following the FAQ isn't encouraged, but really we put stuff in there because we do indeed want such things closed.
On multiple answers. This is something I've tried to explain so many times, something which various users have also explained, and something that even got a blog post on. People, both on the closing and the reopening ends, still get confused on this. This is ultimately a tangent to your concern, though, so I'll be brief. I just want this understood.
Questions are allowed to have multiple solutions. Almost any strategy type question we get on the site will follow this. That's why we allow more than one answer to be posted, after all. What makes these work is that any individual answer is capable of solving the problem. They seek to be a comprehensive effort to complete the question.
Itemized repositories don't have multiple solutions, they have multiple items. This is what makes them more similar to polls than towards more traditionally acceptable list questions - their contents are built in an entry-by-entry basis. And moreover, in spite of the fact that no individual answer provides a conclusion, the vast majority of these questions are only of interest to people who care about individual items.
The answer to "list of all steampunk games" is not a single steampunk game, but that's all most people care about. To use a quote from Jeff about itemized lists...
yes, this is the "give me a recipe for baking cookies" problem. Individual answers of "use sugar!" and "use flour!" and "add butter!" are terrible compared to "here's how I baked cookies last and how they turned out.."
There's a large difference between when something has multiple possible solutions, and when something just has multiple qualifying items. The former is acceptable, the latter not so much. And important to the point made in the last section, we don't want to leave broken windows that give the image that we accept itemized lists. They may be valuable, but they're simply not what we do.