Somehow default consencus on post heavy rain western adventure games utilizing cinematic presentation is that they are like a movie or a tv show with players ability to shape their own canon of its story.
As of moment of writing this "SILENT HILL: Ascension" came out (kinda) and weaponises this idea to extort audience for money, its "overview trailer" mentions this idea of defining canon as a mantra, as a curse.
But is that really all that choice making and branching narrative can be? Is that all what it was? Answer is no.
Even Heavy Rain as this trendsetter already wasnt just that (and that not even delving in the genre past with games like Chunsoft's Kamaitachi no Yoru), the game used interactivity and idea of choice and its consequences even existing to create connection between players and character, to make player feel what those characters feel in any given moment thru interactivity.

Twin Mirror interconnects idea of choice and its consequences with heavy gamification to create a thematic narrative where neither route is treated as right or wrong.
The game main conflict can be neatly summed up by the fact that while investigating murder mystery player has a timed choice to either listen to characters rant about their circumstances or coldly cut them off to get to the point of asking your mystery solving questions. Its a conflict between empathy and truth.
Back in the day main character was a reporter who wrote an article that uncovered certain wrongdoings, and while it was morally good thing, it lead to the town main source of income to shut down. Despite doing something good consequences of doing so lead to something bad, so its understandable why hero who exposed the evil himself got treated like even worse evil.
Even before the game started ambiguity gets established, doing the right thing may not always be the right thing to do given circumstances, or at least not for everyone.

Years later main character returns to the town that mostly hates him due to his close friend passing. As fate or more so murder mystery narrative contrivice would have it said death wasnt under the normal circumstances and was most definitely not an accident. This idea is proposed if not forced onto MC by the first character he meets - a victim's daughter. While its easy to consider that she is coping from her father passing, she is in fact correct.

The game separates its more gamey gameplay sections away from the "reality" where player walks in standart third person controls and "clicks" on NPCs to initiate dialogue or on objects to initiate MC comments (and i find those comments to be strong parts of dontnod games) - into different realities with different presentations.

While i find presentation of investigation to be kinda banal cyberspace reconstruction of crime with not super imaginative gameplay of "choose right options to complete how sequence did play out", stuff like handling panic attack as running thru the black void attacked by a doors with typography of negative thought with player needing to find the doors with positive thoughts while on the run to calm down MC i found pretty creative.

There is however also intrusion of this artificial into the reality where MC just talks with people - his imaginary friend, who gives tips on how to handle any given situation and how to proceed with dialogue. The game very briefly tries to explain his existence as "MC was anti social as a child, so he created this persona to be his friend", which i dont think was handled particulary well, but at least its thematically coherent that he pushes MC to be more empathetic person and consider other people as people, and not just NPCs to give testimonies about murder mystery.

Something brilliant the game does with him is that it has 2 scenes back to back of MC trying to help 2 different characters to calm down.
In the first case you have 3 choices and 4th one to ask him which one of the 3 is correct one, its not even a tip, he will tell you and it will be the best option. However it seems to be limited in terms of how much it could have been used during this dialogue, honestly makes me wish they would incorporate this thru out the whole game as more consistent system instead of him just being there as non interactive thing in a dialogue. However that in itself show MC opening up to him, and not just getting suggestions passivly, but actively seeking them.
In the second scene MC meets victims daughter again, and his imaginary supported proceeds to tell him what to say even before dialogue option appears. If player chooses to follow the advice, it will be "wrong choice" that will upset her, after which his imaginary advices resigns in defeat saying that MC knows better how to handle her. It conditions player to follow advice only to present it as unreliable immedietly after.

Game's major choices are framed with portraits of MC and his empathy Watson. If one repressents consideration of others and trust, then another repressents cold rationality and distrust for the sake of finding truth.
However its not as clear cut as we can see, victims daughter doesnt want empty consideration towards her, she wants honestly - even if it means cold hard truth.
We can see this both as her being more accepting of this side of MC, his "detective" side, but we can also see childish naivity about "truth over everything" - where MC is just inconsiderate in his pursuit of truth, she is just innocent and doesnt yet realise how complex the world is and how truth can hurt, even herself. In fact revealing the full truth to her would leave her to become disillusioned with her father, however said truth wont be discovered until the very end of the game after the curprint would get "justiced".

Late into the game player gets biggest choice yet between detective side and empathetic human side - basically a choice between 2 gameplay system which will define which one MC will use in the finale to confront the curpint.
If player choses detective side, then upon returning to reality for a short period of time MC sees a person with him as this cyberspace voxel thing the same way people are presented in his virtual simulation when he does his investigation thing - very cool way to showcase how detached MC became and how he treats others as NPC in his mystery game.
In fact most magical virtual cyberspace investigation simulation thing (of which there arent that many admitedly) do a nice job of depicting idea of seeking truth as something destructive.
Very first one is about MC remembering how he had a fist fight with a dude while being drunk a night before, and the last one before above mentioned above is about MC creating a diversion to get past guards by setting something another person had created by hand on fire - MC literally destroys something valuable to another person to get the truth, he comes like a force of nature to a group of people who were hurt the most by the article he wrote years ago and hurts them some more.
Don't get it wrong, its not just simply a bad thing, it not like letting murdered being on the loose would be a better choice, it's not like not getting some form of justice for those who had died would be a better choice.

At the end if player had chosen detective side then MC confronts the murder ignoring why did this person became like this in the first place - its just a culprit, someone to be brought to justice.
Narrative itself was kinda banal "someone was killed while uncovering dirty secrets" and the game short length really make events feel like they just happen quickly for the sake of this murder mystery farce to unfold and conclude, however gameplay serving as both tool of storytelling and element of presentation really elevate it for me to become something memorable even if individual elements arent particulary strong.

However with epiloge i feel like it becomes more interesting.
With everything seemingly concluded and everyone getting some form of closure MC has to leave the city once again.
And it doesnt just cut to cutscene, player has to manually make MC leave the way he came from - the game UI even makes it a mission, it just says "leave". And while leaving you will actually meet another character who makes a sudden appearance and that then MC will realise something again, after everything was seemingly over - he met a mastermind behind everything that happened. A mastermind he has ability to put confront legally.
However said mastermind only came to the town because of the article MC had wrote years ago, because town came to a downfall as result of this article being published. It can be argued that MC is as guilty in events that happened as actual people who have blood on their hands. Well mastermind kinda doesnt have blood on his hands and nor does MC, so...
They may had different intends, but consequences are similiar. They had enabled each other existence and to do what they do - detective need criminals to do crimes to apprehend them after all. In the void created by evil being purged worse evil can come to take its place, but does it mean we have to just accept it in fear of that happening? What if this evil supports the economy and society, feeds normal innocent people? Do we have to strive to what just if it means hurting
The game doesnt present a good or bad solution, both are ambigious. The game has one last choice, MC can retain this status quo build on dirty money or he can take it down even if means potentially making people lives worse again like he did years ago.
Whichever player chooses, nor the player nor the MC will see those people regardless. We have no choice but to run away from consequences of our actions, either in another town or into the credits roll and uninstalling the game.