Trueness of that statement is undefined, as the statement itself is insufficiently defined. That is was made by a human is irrelevant. It is a statement about the behavior of a system, a system which itself is designed to have certain behaviors.
In the colloquial sense, understanding the implicit context, it would be true (and "objectively true"). The only thing that could cause someone not to consider it an "objective, absolute truth" is the informality and the incompleteness of the statement. This was brought up in other answers and sparked some discussion in the comments.
An absolutely true statement that describes an invariant, always-true behavior, would have to be something along the lines of:
"Given this game [define what a game is], defined by this algorithm [define what you mean by algorithm], as long as the laws of physics are valid [list the individual laws that it depends on], and the machine is not interrupted in running this algorithm and does so without errors [clarify what that means], clicking on a car [define what clicking on something means] always leads to the in-game character jumping on the car [define what that means]."
Or if the described behavior needn't be invariant, and more in-line with what the true meaning of this natural language statement is, the objectively true form of it would be:
"A person able to comprehend this statement and living around year 2024, and familiar with concepts of video games, cars, etc, will agree with the notion that clicking on the car generally leads to jumping on it, even if there is an arbitrary number of special cases where this might not happen"
The question as posed asks about objectivity of truth of statements about human-made stuff, but the complicating factors around it are based in non-exactness of human language (form of the statement, not its true intended content), and blatant disregard for the simple truth this statement requires an enormous amount of context to make it even possible to assess its trueness in the logical sense.