I’m not necessarily talking about moment-to-moment gameplay or mechanics (though I could see some interesting points being made about, for example, RTS gameplay or RPG character building influence how you approached “strategy” in your own life).
What I’m trying to get at are the games you felt really had something to say.
For example, while I’m by no means the biggest fan (only ever played 2 and V), playing MGS V recently (and catching up on the background a bit) has created this sense in me, and I wondered where else one might have experienced that from vidya
Unironically, Telltale's The Walking Dead
While it's on rails and your choice don't actually matter to the story, what they are in fact is a personality test in disguise. People do make choices not to be perceived a certain way, but on the superficial circumstances; they're not hacking the test itself.
In Season 1, Telltale actually put a lot of work into it. For instance there's some dialogs with at least six different versions for Kenny (I think the max is 12). Some vary just by whether he adds "pal" or not. You can really see how people can form two completely different views on the same character based on their own moral views and choices.
In Season 2, Woketale created a propaganda test. They tell you directly and repeat over and over that Jane is an amazing woman and Kenny is a psycho, while judging them by their actions it's the complete opposite. I've seen people play this game, get to the end, choose Jane, and have zero awareness that they've sided with a psychopath. When explaining why they repeat verbatim what the game told them to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm interested in those actions and have no interest in playing it. Care to elaborate?
The first real choice in the first game is between saving a kid or saving an adult. Either way the adult dies and you leave with the kid and his family, so it has no effect at all on the plot but it does effect your relationships. Most significant choices are like this, but some temporarily also alter subplots. I chose the kid because the adult should have known better and if you do this the father warms to you, otherwise he blames you for not trying to help.
Lots of morally ambiguous choices, like when trapped with somebody that's 99% going to turn into a zombie and kill everybody do you kill them to prevent that or hope for the miracle?
What's great in the first game is that each NPC character has well-defined personality traits and they react to your choices like that person actually would.
Second game was written by woke idiots who put zero effort in and is only unintentionally a litmus test for whether you are a blind NPC or have critical thought.
I'm sure the correct choice would be the preventive killing, right?
Or it is the stupid option?
Killing to prevent them turning into a zombie is the smart, pragmatic choice but in the game situation it's also murder of a person who could still be saved.
That's why the first game is such an interesting personality test. The game plot plays out the same so there's no correct or wrong choice. But it does show you how your choices are perceived by the other characters.