This review makes me think a bit. For the most part I agree with what it says, having myself played Machinarium, but I take exception at the tone. I think this dichotomy between art (or presentation) and gameplay is unjustified.
I think that to say that it's a game with great art ruined by poor gameplay, or a game with poor gameplay saved by great art, is not the best way of looking at it. That's treating them too differently. If we were talking about a game meant to be Prince of Persia or Castlevania, yes, the gameplay, that is, the mechanics of the game, are far and away the most important thing. But they're less important with Machinarium. I know, I know, gameplay > all, but maybe not.
Suppose we have a scale, on the one end of which are things that literally have no gameplay (a movie, a book), and on the other are games that are almost wholly gameplay (pure puzzle games, storyless shooters, "versus" fighting games). On the latter side, poor gameplay is damning; nothing could save Street Fighter if the controls were clunky, the action poorly timed. Most games are weighted to that end, but I think Machinarium is one that falls closer to the middle; the artwork and music (which cannot be praised enough; if you have any love for Wall-E, you'll love this protagonist) are really the main substance of the game.
It reminds me of playing Riven. While Myst really is pretty flawed, and not very interesting looking now that the novelty of 3D CGI has worn off, Riven is still a very beautiful and complete game. I found when I played it, though, that if I played it as a game, the way I play other games, it was insufferable; there was no action. I had to walk around a lot. The game did not give me information, but left me to find it myself. I enjoyed the game when I played as... something else. I don't have a precise word to use, but ultimately something between a game and a book. That is to say, Riven, despite being a fully-realized work, is less of a game than other games are, and so your input, the player's part, is less important than it is in other games. Riven is as much about looking and seeing as it is about playing and interacting.
I'd say the same of Machinarium. And for most point-and-clicks, actually. Though many point-and-clicks do manage to ruin themselves with poor gameplay, because many point-and-clicks are ridiculously difficult for anyone not a fanatic. Machinarium, I felt, did alright. It skirted the edges, but ultimately, accounting for the built-in hints, I never got stuck on one screen for more than a few minutes; though there was a bit of pixel-hunting, I really felt the whole time that the game was holding my hand.
I think that to say that it's a game with great art ruined by poor gameplay, or a game with poor gameplay saved by great art, is not the best way of looking at it. That's treating them too differently. If we were talking about a game meant to be Prince of Persia or Castlevania, yes, the gameplay, that is, the mechanics of the game, are far and away the most important thing. But they're less important with Machinarium. I know, I know, gameplay > all, but maybe not.
Suppose we have a scale, on the one end of which are things that literally have no gameplay (a movie, a book), and on the other are games that are almost wholly gameplay (pure puzzle games, storyless shooters, "versus" fighting games). On the latter side, poor gameplay is damning; nothing could save Street Fighter if the controls were clunky, the action poorly timed. Most games are weighted to that end, but I think Machinarium is one that falls closer to the middle; the artwork and music (which cannot be praised enough; if you have any love for Wall-E, you'll love this protagonist) are really the main substance of the game.
It reminds me of playing Riven. While Myst really is pretty flawed, and not very interesting looking now that the novelty of 3D CGI has worn off, Riven is still a very beautiful and complete game. I found when I played it, though, that if I played it as a game, the way I play other games, it was insufferable; there was no action. I had to walk around a lot. The game did not give me information, but left me to find it myself. I enjoyed the game when I played as... something else. I don't have a precise word to use, but ultimately something between a game and a book. That is to say, Riven, despite being a fully-realized work, is less of a game than other games are, and so your input, the player's part, is less important than it is in other games. Riven is as much about looking and seeing as it is about playing and interacting.
I'd say the same of Machinarium. And for most point-and-clicks, actually. Though many point-and-clicks do manage to ruin themselves with poor gameplay, because many point-and-clicks are ridiculously difficult for anyone not a fanatic. Machinarium, I felt, did alright. It skirted the edges, but ultimately, accounting for the built-in hints, I never got stuck on one screen for more than a few minutes; though there was a bit of pixel-hunting, I really felt the whole time that the game was holding my hand.
