The idea that a game could deliberately restrict player agency and input not to focus the experience but to reframe the experience entirely is interesting, and one I'd not seriously considered before.

Certainly the traditional design decision is to provide victory conditions - dominance conditions - as a psychological reward. Successful games usually exploit these mechanisms to either addict or entice players into activities related to the game.

On the other hand, take a game like Papers Please - it is possible to win, but it's a win by survival - you escape or survive the system, you don't beat it. The oppressive atmosphere in the game weighs heavy and having players experience the game is its core objective.

I wonder whether it's worth considering if achieving victory over many games is as much a form of escapism as anything else; while agency and dominance may not reflect the lived experience of the marginalised, it's not necessarily the experience of the people it's "designed for" either (at least to the extent to which it's depicted). In the realm of games-as-entertainment rather than games-as-art, the storytelling focuses on a liberated ideal - the ubermensch taking on the hero's journey, on an inevitable crusade toward victory.

Ultimately though this is about games-as-art, and whether the designer's vision is diluted by the experiences of playtesters. Either way, by sidestepping the homogenization that inevitably happens through iteration, this would certainly provide more unique and interesting experiences (even if the cost is a less "fun" experience).