“low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about”

I think that’s cultural/an acquired taste.

One could argue the outcome of high-scoring games is more predictable, making them less tense.

If, say, on average party A scores a point every minute and party B scores one every 40 seconds, party B will win almost every one hour game against party A (the expected outcome is 90-60), and each individual score is only marginally important. So, why would a spectator be enthousiast about a (missed) score after 20 seconds of play?

If, on other hand, party A scores a goal every 30 minutes and party B one every 20 minutes, party A has a much higher chance of beating party B in a one hour game, and each missed opportunity becomes a potential game changer.

In soccer, some of the most tense games end in 0-0, 1-0, or 0-1 (especially at major tournaments, where, often [1], each result counts)

[1] for one where that wasn’t the case, watch West-Germany against Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón).

In this regard, the most notable feature of tennis is that every match is a mini-tournament. It doesn't matter whether you lose the game 40-0 or after the 5th deuce point, you still just have to make up one game. Similarly, the score of the first set doesn't matter; only who wins. This periodic levelling of the score seems to make it more engaging somehow.

Personally, regardless of sport I only feel tension when I care about the winner. The game could be tied with seconds left to score and it’s no more intense than a pickup game between friends.

I feel the same. I watched (and enjoyed) lots of college basketball when I had roommates that were heavily invested in games' outcomes but never again since.