Summary of Key Points
As the flagship cooperative shooting game, *Deep Rock Galactic* (DRG) has built a reputation on its unique "Dwarf Mining" gameplay mechanism—where players divide tasks and collaborate to work together within randomly generated caves. This approach has earned it 97% positive reviews on Steam, sold over 11 million copies, and generated revenue of $200 million. However, its sequel, *Deep Rock Galactic: Core Shift*, released in an EA Early Access format, received only a 58% global rating, with a mere 10% positive rating in the Chinese-speaking market. The issues stem from several key factors: the new gameplay deviating from the original's core elements, mechanisms that go against player habits, an unreasonable pricing strategy, and a lack of attention to玩家 feedback, especially in the Chinese region where players have lower trust in EA due to past experiences.
Why Are Old Players Such Devoted Fans of DRG?—the Magic of "Dwarf Mining"
The success of DRG lies in its ability to combine effortless cooperation with a constant sense of novelty:
- Well-defined Dwarf Roles: The four playable classes—Scout (with grappling hooks for mapping), Engineer (for building platforms), Miner (for digging tunnels), and Gunner (for providing shields)—each have essential roles, and none can function without the others. For example, without an Engineer, teammates cannot reach higher mining areas; without a Scout, the dark caves are impossible to explore. This interdependence fosters a strong sense of teamwork.
- Random Cave Generation: The terrain, mineral veins, and enemy locations in each mission are randomly generated, and all rock walls can be destroyed. Players can either blast their way through or take a longer route to find hidden treasures, making every game like opening a mystery box—never boring even after hundreds of hours of play.
- A Strong Community Bond: The game's slogan, "Rock and Stone," has become a symbol of the players' bond, with a band even releasing a song by that name (with nearly 2 million views). This emotional connection gives players a strong sense of belonging to the IP.
Why Did the New Game Fail?—Three Major Flaws in Gameplay and Mechanics
Although *Core Shift* looks similar to its predecessor, the overall experience is drastically different:
- Time Limits Destroying the Slow Pace: Each level has strict time limits, and the longer players wait, the more aggressive the enemies become. Players can no longer chat and explore freely; instead, they are constantly under pressure, turning what was once a relaxed cooperative experience into a frantic rush to meet deadlines, stripping all fun.
- Shared Progress Leading to Conflict: When the team levels up, everyone must pause to choose rewards together, which often leads to arguments. Players complain about wasting time on unnecessary choices and feeling forced to socialize. EA claimed this was designed to promote teamwork, but it only caused more tension—similar to how *Heroes of the Storm*'s mandatory experience sharing led to player dissatisfaction.
- Lack of Innovation in Progression: As a "light roguelike" game, *Core Shift* should have provided new challenges through random upgrades. However, most improvements merely increase numerical values (e.g., 5% more damage) without any innovative gameplay elements. The game also has limited ammunition, and enemies are both strong and numerous, making each battle exhausting with meager rewards. Old players find the experience frustrating and unenjoyable.
The Chinese Market's Record-Breaking Low Ratings: Three Major Disappointments
The 10% rating in the Chinese market is not due to overly harsh criticism but rather three major issues that hit players hard:
- Unreasonable Pricing: Sold for 108 yuan, the same price as the mature original without any discounts, it failed to meet player expectations. Fans of the IP expected an upgraded version but got a altered and inferior product, feeling deceived.
- EA's Trust Crisis: Chinese players are cautious about EA games due to past disappointments with unfinished projects, and the high price made them expect a higher quality. The poor quality of *Core Shift* further fueled their disappointment.
- Ignoring Player Feedback: Players repeatedly pointed out issues like time limits and shared progression during the closed beta, but EA made no changes. This lack of response made them feel disrespected, a situation that has ruined the reputations of many foreign companies in recent years.
How Can Developers Save the Situation?—Listening to Player Emotions
There's a saying in the gaming community: "Players may be wrong, but their emotions are always valid." The problems with *Core Shift* stem from failing to meet the players' fundamental needs:
- Players Want Voluntary Cooperation, Not Forced Unity: The original's cooperation was natural; the new game's mandatory sharing of progress forces players together against their will.
- Players Want Free Exploration, Not Stressful Rushes: The fun in DRG came from the leisurely mining and occasional battles with enemies. The time limits in *Core Shift* undermine this relaxed atmosphere.
- Potential Improvements: Developers are already making changes, such as adjusting the time limits and optimizing the progression system. If they can return to the core elements of "Dwarf Mining"—enabling seamless cooperation and free exploration while setting reasonable prices—they might be able to restore the game's reputation.
Conclusion
The failure of *Core Shift* serves as a reminder that derivative games must not lose touch with their original concept. The reputation built over nearly a decade by DRG was almost ruined by a new title that deviated from its core values. However, if developers truly listen to player emotions and focus on providing the combination of effortless cooperation and continuous novelty, there's still hope for the game's revival. After all, players' love for DRG has always been strong.