Leaving things purposely up to interpretation has to be my favourite design decision in Art. It is the backbone of any great piece that wants to find a comfortable spot in the back of your mind, even long after you have left your seat.

It is a natural feature in Artforms like music, the visual-arts or literature purely through what they can't do. An instrument can't play images, a painting doesn't speak words to you and A BUNCH OF LETTERS CANNOT PRODUCE SOUND. I couldn't hold back on that cheap and silly gag lol, but it still works to show that it all just takes place inside the recipients head. "I'll leave a better one up to your interpretation" is what I could posture and that would be an example of a lazy, insincere way to handle this organic quirk as a design choice.
I digress and come back to my point.
Our experiences with Art are obviously, inherently subjective, but even more so if there are layers missing and our individual minds need to fill their needs to fill them, everyone with the unique shapes life has chiselled them.
Taking away further layers intentionally and intentfully takes confidence, not just for the artists in themselves, but in their audience. It is a sign of respect towards the recipients intellect to not handhold them through an idea.

Films and especially Video Games are usually really bad at leaving room to interpretate. They need to direct the viewer, use the established language of Film or Play to guide them through a story, often tell them what exactly is the appropriate way of thought in any given moment with a multitude of "humans are dumb animals lets exploit this" shit, or worst of all, out right tell them. (Of course there is a layer of not wanting to make a player frustrated with it's systems which largely plays into this, but that isn't what i mean)

Game developers always love to brag about the interactivity and the amount of choices players are given in their game, but these aren't just predetermined, mapped out and implemented, no they also follow a predetermined single conclusion of thought and emotion. There is no contextual interplay anymore once a game hands you your result and walks you through it.
Michael Haneke talked in an Interview about a scene of his film "Das weiße Band" and the attempt to carefully set up multiple different viable interpretations of it and it's meaning (a thing he often attempts actually). The viewer's emotion has to decide which one. Everyone watched the same film, but the one in your head further alters depending on your own choice of interpretation. (Of course one could argue that these interpretation were still mapped out and implemented by him blabla, the difference and my point tho is that he doesn't walk you through them or claims a right one)
Imagine the exponential potential if AAA's attempted and left room for something like this.
But they won't cause they can't it seems. The impact of a player choice has to be made aware of. They need to make sure that the player knows interplay took place and most of the times even what exactly to conclude from it, not just with a consequence to the action, but a reaffirming telegraph that it was one.
Is this a flaw in Video Games as a whole are just in their established design philosophies?
In the worst of these cases they don't just view the player as complete idiots who need everything spoon feed, they become, and Film also often does this, emotional Propaganda.

Thirty Flights of loving has no branching choices of play, only of thought. Unless of course you count running past every room as a choice of play, which is an option.
Blocky low poly graphics don't have the means to properly propagate and Brendon Chung willfully ignored any attempt at direct or conventional storytelling. The game has no words to speak to you, the music came before it and all the written text in the environment gives only context to further room of interpretation.
It is a really short and sometimes janky experience that can seem unfinished or rushed to an average gamer's sensibilities, but the sincerity in it's ambitions are more than enough for me.

Like I said you could just speedrun through the entire game, but the things that make this easily possible are the thoughtfully placed polygons that subconsciously guide the player to the next set piece and the dev not giving a fuck if they choose to do so. There is actually a really interesting GDC talk about level design and lighting tricks to help guide a player through a linear environment and it's story. https://youtu.be/9RbXTv7iNbw?si=NFcsUBxi492HqmL1 (is still have no idea how to hyperlink in my notes app, if anyone knows how pls tell me lol)

My text is getting a bit too long again and game is only fifteen minutes long, so I'll stop myself here without even actually reviewing it. I'd rather talk more broad about the thoughts it made me engage in than spoil any of it's contents. I'll just say I finally got my first PC with the ability to run highend stuff, but this was the first game I chose to play on it for some reason. I also played it twice in a row, for the directors commentary, because I was that intrigued by it. Plus it got me type all of this shit out immediately after that.

If you have 5 bucks or the patents to wait for a sale, like short games that attempt kind of artsy stuff or whatever you wanna call it, then definitely give Thirty Flights of Loving a go.

Thirty Flights of Loving, seventh release of the "Citizen Abel" series, launched on August 20 of 2012 by Brendon Chung's indie studio Blendo Games, is a walking simulator or game-film that tells a story in 30 minutes or less.

In the time that will take you to experience this narrative you will not find a deep plot, no sub-text, no message behind, the gameplay is above all lineal and basic, the graphics are quite obnoxious. The aesthetic is coherent between objects and people, and so forth, but they are not elaborately real and rather gleamingly simplistic, there is a lack of voice-acting which is replaced by a quirky and bizarre mumble à la Banjo-Kazooie, and first and foremost a large quantity of disorganized and chaotic sequences with only a small amount of sense. Until you start tying up the loose ends.

So, how could it be so relevant to the foundation of vidya as a serious platform in which art, like an edifice of audiovisual interaction, will arise to entomb the capitalistic desire of entertainment as a tool for profitable alienation?

In cinema, just like it could happen in video games, there are some tools of which you can take advantage to create a more poetic, fast, vivid, sad, etcetera, ambient to the spectator. Geometry, composition, silence or music, and the length of a scene can create different emotions, interpretations and/or meanings of what the author is trying to tell by means of what is showed in the frames. Here Chung does not apply all of the previously said, but he does use of something really important: Montage.
In Dziga Vertov's experimental 1929 Soviet silent documentary film "Man with a Movie Camera" the entire plot is told by montage, without dialogues and yet having a thread that connects the sequences providing a notable consistence.

This mixture of Wong Kar-wai and Tarantino is a totally rich adventure in the way of how things should be told, grabbing a flat event recreated throughout history on countless occasions and giving it a fresh twist (although maybe if the story was longer it wouldn't have worked) from were a lot of devs could grab a tip or two.

Complete playthrough. Thirty Flights of Loving is a very short first-person story with limited interactivity. It quite effectively draws the player into its story through the use of jump cuts between scenes that clearly take place in sequence, but with notable gaps between them, inviting you to fill in the details of its plot. While perhaps part of the charm, the very primitive graphical style may be a turn-off for many, but the soundtrack is pretty good. Although very cheap, I'm not sure that I'd recommend buying this on its own (I received it as part of a bundle), but it's an interesting experience to play through while it lasts - overall I'd give the game a qualified recommendation.

A 15-minute game as a spy from the first person... the plot is bizzard and in general they throw out tons of information in a funny way. In general, you can’t tell more; rather, the game should now be considered as an experiment by indie developers on a modified quake 2 engine.

15-минутная игра за шпиона от первого лица... сюжет биззардный и в целом кидают тонны информации в смешнявом виде. В целом больше и не расскажешь, скорее игру сейчас надо рассматривать, как эксперимент инди разработчиков на модифицированном движке quake 2.