After geeking out on Star Wars: Zero Company for about eight hours now, I’m ready to give some very early impressions—so take what I say with a grain of salt. This will be a bit haphazard, so I won’t go over things in detail; I just want to talk about a few points. We can start with the story and the protagonist. The story so far seems interesting, with you running a mercenary company during the height of the prequel era—and having the big separatist war looming in the background is just awesome (if you like the prequel movies, that is). However…
The cult
Your mission, what you were hired for, does not feel that enticing. Your job is to take down a strange new cult with weird-as-hell powers, even for Star Wars. I have not seen too much of them yet, but I can’t escape that generic evil cultist feeling when I do. They just feel out of place, which makes me wish for more battles against droids and other separatists. Oh well, it might get better later on.
On the protagonist, Hawks, I enjoy that he is written like a fatherly mercenary captain that cares for his team. While he is on a serious task, it’s not without humor from the man himself, but it’s the subdued kind, and it works great. The companions are well-written as well, with a minimum of Marvthos*.
Gameplay and mechanics
First off, this is not really a tactics game, not in the purest form. I knew it would walk the fine line between tactical and puzzle when I saw it would use nuXcom mechanics—but I still thought the tactical combat would win out, like how it does in Xcom 2. No, Star Wars: Zero Company is even more boardgamey, and relies much more on debuffing and skill synergies than Xcom 2 ever did. Some will like this, but it also means firefights will feel weak, as using a skill is ten times as deadly. The battle works more like puzzles, of figuring out skills, and what synergies work the best to remove the opponents pieces on the board.
I’m down in the middle on this, since I think the gameplay is fun and rewarding, but I can’t say any combat scenarios turn out “authentic” to either real-life or Star Wars. It’s very gamey, but amusing in that sense.
The blasters
Since it seems you already have access to all the weapons from the start, you can give any class, any weapon, and they do about the same damage. But have perks to make them differentiate from each other. This means there are no new cool weapons to find, only modules to modify them with. Increasing damage comes by expanding your base’s tech, finding modules or increasing the “bonding” between soldiers. Once again, I’m not sure how I feel about this.
As a tactical game in the vein of Xcom, it’s a clear disappointment, as loot will be a minimum. Most rewards consist of a random module and credits. Now, sitting on the same rifle throughout the campaign can become boring, but at the same time, being able to give anyone a sniper rifle is cool—even if you don’t have a class dedicated for deadly long range shots.
I like the aspect of having a nice customized rifle that sticks with you, as you wouldn’t upgrade your gun for a new one after each mission in real life (for immersion). But rewarding so little for the missions—where the best you can hope for is a +2 close combat blaster damage module—feels disheartening at times. However, it still works, but some weapons come off as odd, like the mentioned sniper rifle without the class-skills to make it a monster. Now, it’s just a blaster for longer ranges.
That’s all
And that’s essentially all I have to say at this point. Star Wars: Zero Company is a good and fun game so far, but it’s Xcom 2 in a Star Wars skin with a bigger focus on “boardgamey” skills. As long as you go in with that knowledge, I think you will have a good time. Expecting a tactical game in the vein of Jagged Alliance 3, for example, will only disappoint.
Time to send more clankers to the great rust bucket in the sky, so thanks for reading!
– Thomas
*Marvthos — a term I’m coining here to describe the modern way of deliberately cheapening a sincere or dramatic moment with a quip, ironic statement or constant sarcasm. The name is a nod toward the Marvel‑style tonal sabotage that has become standard in modern blockbuster writing.