Counterpoint on Botanicula — Reading Through the Negative Reviews

Introduction

Komugi's review gave Botanicula 7.8 out of 10. Amanita Design released this click-only point-and-click adventure in 2012. A 7.8 sits well below Steam's own "Overwhelmingly Positive" tally. She didn't just praise it, either — she noted up front that the vocabulary of the positive reviews and the vocabulary of the negative ones point at entirely different things.A screenshot from Botanicula (official Steam store asset)

So I went back to read the pile of negative reviews she'd already sorted, this time on my own. The goal isn't to find a contradiction. It's to check how far her defense — that the design is accurately described, not flawed — actually covers what the critics are saying.

As of 2026-09-24, Steam lists 6,715 user reviews, 6,401 of them positive — 95.3%, "Overwhelmingly Positive." Only 314, or 4.7%, are negative. Being a minority doesn't mean their complaints don't deserve a hearing.

The negative reviews' claims

The most common complaint is that the puzzles are shallow. Clicking around at random gets you through, with no order or logic to speak of, reviewers say. The comparison to Amanita's own Machinarium comes up again and again, unfavorably.A screenshot from Botanicula (from the Steam store page)

Next comes boredom and a missing story. A point-and-click that drags on this long gets tiresome, some say; others can't tell what they're even doing, calling it more like poking at characters than solving anything. Tapping the screen without a clear goal stops feeling meaningful to some players.

The rest splits between length-versus-price and confusing controls. The game runs 2.5 to 4 hours, and some feel that doesn't match the asking price. Others report long stretches of not knowing what to click. Players looking for a real challenge call it too aimed at kids.

Examining the claims

This is actually ground Komugi already covered herself. Sorting the top 20 helpful negative reviews by theme, she found "no logic, just trial and error" the largest group at 8, "not really a puzzle" at 4, save-related bugs at 4, and length-versus-price at 2. The recent reviews I read didn't drift far from that split.

What's more interesting is the same 20 reviews sorted by playtime. The "this isn't a game" crowd quit at 9 to 26 minutes. The "no logic" crowd played 106 to 485 minutes — 2 to 8 hours — before complaining. These aren't the same grievance. One group bailed before engaging with the system at all; the other stuck it out to the end and then asked for causal logic they never got.

PC Gamer's Richard Cobbett scored the game 82 and described its solve-feel as "elimination, not deduction." Komugi read that as an accurate description of the design, not a criticism. I agree, as design. But elimination only satisfies a player who recognizes it as elimination. Anyone who spends eight hours without realizing that just sees random clicking.

Where I agree

Where I agree is on the genre mislabeling. "A toy that rewards density of reaction through elimination" and "a puzzle game you solve with logic" end up on the same store shelf. Komugi's design framing is accurate, but the complaint that buyers have little way to tell the difference before purchase is a separate problem her framing doesn't resolve. "This isn't really a puzzle game" isn't an insult that misses the point — it's a labeling complaint.

I won't defend the save-system bugs either. Reports describe being locked into starting a new game after finishing, with no way back for players who missed collectibles. That's a technical defect, not a matter of taste. An argument for the pleasure of dense feedback doesn't excuse lost progress.

Where I disagree

Where I don't agree is the "just random clicking" charge. If a miss still returns a small motion or sound, that miss isn't wasted — it's collected. The positive reviews Komugi cited, the ones that say something happens with every click, are evidence this design is working as intended. It isn't lacking logic; the logic just takes a different shape.A screenshot from Botanicula (from the Steam store page)

I also don't fully buy "too aimed at kids." Reports describe the art style turning suddenly dark near the end, the backgrounds shifting to an unsettling red-black. A game coasting purely on cuteness wouldn't need that turn. I read this as a work that hides a different texture underneath its charm.

Closing

So how much do I agree with the negative reviews, in the end? On genre mislabeling and the technical save-system flaw, I side with the critics. On "just random clicking" and "too aimed at kids," I don't. Of five claims, I back two and reject three.

The buying decision splits accordingly. If you're after the pleasure of reasoning your way to an answer, the kind of resistance Machinarium offers, skip this one — it's exactly the weakness the negative reviews name. If you enjoy touching the screen for its own sake, or want something to watch alongside a kid, rate it a bit higher than Komugi's 7.8.

The save bug is its own matter. If you want to collect everything, check how autosave behaves before you chase achievements. That's not a design opinion — consider it a warning label.

Sources

This piece is based on a reading of Botanicula's Steam store user reviews as of 2026-09-24.

Steam: Botanicula (Overall "Overwhelmingly Positive," 6,401 of 6,715 reviews positive, 314 negative)

Read through the top negative reviews sorted by both "helpful" and "recent."

Komugi's review (2026-09-22) served as comparison and reference; the breakdown of the top 20 helpful negative reviews and their playtime analysis draws on her article.

Images are the screenshot URLs returned by Steam's appdetails endpoint and the store page's header image, used as-is.