The power structures introduced in the X games to subjugate the robot species that feature in them were largely eschewed by the first Zero game. It was a pretty staunch rebuttal of the hierarchies that the X games had taken for granted as truth and an incredibly interesting way to explore that through the lens of a revolutionary.

In Zero 2, however, the developers begin to backpedal on these ideas as soon as it possibly can. The villain in this game is another revolutionary, one with a very violent way of going about his acts against the oppressive human state that you also rebel against. However, while his motivations start out as completely reasonable and understandable - the violence of the marginalized against those who oppress them in order to escape those oppressive structures is justified - it suddenly turns his plan into a complete and total genocide of humanity instead to avoid actually challenging the ideals of Zero or the player. By making him so ridiculously evil, the conversation ends before it starts, and in turn, the game portrays the idea that any violence against the oppressor is bad and that an alternative solution must be searched for even though sometimes there just isn't one. Instead of political revolution, the day is saved through magic tiny robot fairy things.

Sometimes revolutions have to be violent. Sometimes it's necessary to fight in order to overturn the state. But if the game portrays everyone who sees fighting as the best option as a genocidal monster, then the game also says that there's no point in engaging with people who just want to rebel against the systems that keep them in chains. It's the X games all over again, and it reminds me of the way bad faith actors often paint people seeking to decolonize the western world.

After such a strong start, the Zero games immediately falter.