Although I agree with you as far as the 'analogical' and 'inherently ambiguous' argument go, I would like to clarify that, in the case of the soup game, we tried to avoid being authors who control and determine what you call 'paths'. Although, indeed, the game experience is very limited and somewhat linear, in the case of the conception of what a soup is or could be I believe there is an important and interesting point to raise. Here it comes:

(this bit I took from the 'how?' section of the website)

During the development of SOMETHING SOMETHING SOUP SOMETHING, we had to identify the properties and features that different people in a variety of different cultures use to describe soup. By doing so, we tried to remove our personal biases about what soup is (or is not) from the conceptual design of our interactive thought experiment.

Inspired by Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn B. Mervis’s linguistic experiments, we organised focus groups in different countries. The various activities involved in those focus groups were meant to help us more clearly understand what soup was for them. They also ensured that our conceptions of soup, as designers, were as inclusive as possible.

(end quote)

There is a paper discussing the process of determining the properties and features in detail here, in case you are interested: http://soup.gua-le-ni.com/site/assets/files/1025/harrington_pocg2017.pdf

Also, ultimately the game does not impose a criterion for success and does not author the conclusion of the experience with a final statement about what soup really is, or what we think it is. In this sense, rather than a 'playable argument' (which is teleological and follows an argumentative 'line'), we talked about a 'playable thought experiment' (a hypothetical situation that is open to interpretation, negotiation, and can be playful).

Hi :)

I made the interactive thought experiment mentioned in this thread (the soup game, more nominally). I also lurk this forum, from time to time.

In case anyone is interested in trying the 'short game' (if we agree to call it so), you can do it freely at this address: http://soup.gua-le-ni.com/

I left some notes about how we developed the experiment on the website, where I also linked some papers about not only this game, but the more general use of interactive virtual worlds for philosophical uses (both as players and as creators of those 'games', both as readers and as writers of philosophical works). Find more information here: http://soup.gua-le-ni.com/more/

I am interested in understanding and manipulating computers and virtual worlds as philosophical media (with their advantages over text and orality and their inevitable limitations and drawbacks). Currently working on a new one about cats and indexicality.

Happy that the 'soup game' captured your interest.
Might also be interesting to debate whether the 'soup game' itself is a game, and what 'ingredients' make a game a game in case. :)