are you asking about this specific piece or about art in general? Either way yes I disagree.
I don't know the author of this work. I don't know what they intended, so I can't comment on their intentions. I don't know if there's an "intended interpretation" or not, I don't know what that intended interpretation is, I don't know if it lines up with the interpretation you described. If the author intended for a specific, singular interpretation, I would reject that; any interpretation is just one of many. Some interpretations make more sense than others, and how a piece is interpreted can easily change from person to person, or even over time for a single person. Whatever you get out of it: it's true that that's what you got out of it.
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.
