The core tactical experience of Star Wars: Squad Zero has been praised, but critics argue that the four-person squad size, repetitive maps, and underdeveloped progression system limit the game's potential. Compared to XCOM 2, this title's peripheral systems still have significant room for expansion.
Critics believe Bit Reactor has proven that the Star Wars theme can naturally integrate into turn-based combat. Deploying agents, planning movement, and finding ways to overcome difficult encounters form a solid foundation for the game; relationships between squad members also ensure the team feels like more than just a collection of replaceable soldiers.
Squad size is a key point of criticism. This game only allows deploying four agents per mission, whereas XCOM 2, while also starting with a four-person squad, later expands to six. The author argues that adding two fully configurable members would significantly broaden tactical combinations, and the existence of mods that increase squad size reflects player interest in this feature.
A lack of variety in maps and environments also affects replayability during repeated missions. Players quickly recognize similar terrain and layouts, missing the unpredictability offered by XCOM 2's procedural maps. Additionally, character progression paths and strategic upgrades are not prominent enough, meaning squads rarely need reconfiguration once established.
The author suggests that a potential sequel should include progression paths that substantially alter decision-making, and leverage Star Wars factions, technology, and enemy behaviors to create more distinct missions. Injuries, losses, and shared combat experiences could further influence character relationships and abilities. However, these ideas are merely suggestions from critics and do not represent any development plans officially announced by Bit Reactor.