Игрок 0688·Не рекомендует·32 ч в игре

I waited years for this game to come out. I had it wishlisted and it sat at the top of my list as I eagerly watched development head towards publication. It even became a running joke with friends. Finally, the game released. I dove in headfirst and loved every moment of it. The storyline, the classes, their customization, and the progression. That was until a few hours in and the story... stopped? The developers hadn't moved much further than a few hours of gameplay from where they started. I gave it time and more updates came and the story continued. Now the last update was in 2024, with a class preview and other promising news. This game was dead before it even released. The potential it had was refreshing and a chance to open up party based RPG games once more with a system that made every decision feel impactful, but not punishing. I wish they would continue development on this game, but the way they left it, is quite disheartening.

Игрок 9642·Рекомендует·63 ч в игре

prety good overall the only down side is the random traits and attribue specialisation mainly to many negative trait and wen you reload 300 times in harder gameplay mode to get a team that is not desing to endup in the infirmary in a semi parmanence oups your damage dealer attribue spesialisation are mending and other you dont need. so its frustrating. If you add 2 more positive traits in the mix i think your game would work. cos now its like well you got a dullard and a anemic in your team. i dont want to... well life is hard budy and they are no good... i dont want to... well no choice do you want to play or not... not shure...

Игрок 5946·Не рекомендует·41 ч в игре

no undo for most things very janky, move and que a spell wont let you un-que even though you don't have a proper target.

Игрок 4722·Не рекомендует·7 ч в игре

Lot's of potential. Interesting D&D style mechanics. Overly complex class system joined with too randomly generated characters makes this game not for me. A lot of micro management, adding points, picking progressions, for characters I can't bother to care about. Add on top of all this, you play as the leader but appear to have no actual character, i.e. no skin in the game about tactics. If they're going to refer to the player, then the player should have an actual character, not just be a non-descript decision maker.

Игрок 4797·Не рекомендует·2 ч в игре

The Iron Oath has an appealing premise and presentation, but for me its systems are too abstract and too constrained. The obvious comparisons are Battle Brothers and Darkest Dungeon, but I do not think it captures what makes either of those games interesting. Character development is heavily class-driven: classes are tied to particular weapon types, inventory is minimal, and you deploy only a small group of highly specialised characters. You technically have a larger roster, but most of the meaningful choice is in deciding which specialists to bring rather than freely developing and equipping a company. The attribute system makes this worse. Characters receive random affinities for certain attributes, making those attributes easier to improve, but these affinities do not necessarily correspond to their class or role. That can produce things like a non-healing tank with an affinity for Mending. When classes are already so tightly defined, randomness like this does not create interesting unconventional builds; it mostly creates characters whose cheap attributes may be irrelevant to what they are actually designed to do. My bigger problem is the dungeon resource system. Camps and restoration are limited, and many abilities have limited uses that must be stretched across several encounters. That creates resource management, but not the kind I enjoy. Instead of asking “which ability is best for this tactical situation?”, I often found myself asking “is this fight important enough to spend an ability at all?” This is where the comparison with Darkest Dungeon breaks down for me. Darkest Dungeon also revolves around attrition and resource pressure, but those constraints mostly create strategic tension around the battles while leaving the interesting combat tools available to use. In The Iron Oath, scarcity too often suppresses tactical choice itself. Routine encounters encourage basic attacks while you conserve the interesting abilities for later, so tactical depth becomes front-loaded into party composition and resource conservation rather than coming from varied decisions during the fights. There is nothing obviously broken here, and the presentation is good, but the design feels much narrower than its influences suggest. I stopped playing fairly early because I could already see that the core loop and character-development systems were not something I wanted to spend dozens of hours on.