This is actually a 100+ year old divisive point in literary/media criticism - the older traditional view is authorial intent is the only thing that matters, the post-modern view is authorial intent shouldn't be considered at all and you should only look at the text in isolation. I think the sensible and most common view is that authorial intent should be taken into account, but should not be considered the final word - because you can't truly know what the author is intending, there may be subconscious things even the author isn't aware of (for example the complete sexlessness of HP Lovecraft is probably not intentional but probably telling), and how the author gets it wrong can be interesting and should be considered part of the piece as well (for example, when you mention how people won't watch the ocean, that's interesting, and should be considered part of the piece because the game leaves room for that kind of interpretation).

TLDR, there may be an intended point, but that's not the only thing a piece can be judged on. The best art leaves room for multiple interpretations, it has a life of it's own beyond the creator when it's experienced by people.