This game takes some liberties with who I "support"

[Volt]

I dont know what impact this will have on the game, but Im getting very annoyed at the "support X candidate" thing.

When I say "teamwork is important", in absolutely NO WAY is that "I support candidate X". When I say "This is not the right place for this talk", it doesnt mean I "withdraw support". When I say "I wish to be neutral", IT DOESNT MEAN I AM FOR OR AGAINST someone.

Im guessing they couldnt come up with a neutral outcome, but honestly this is slightly more annoying to me than it should be. Mostly because the Mayor is a git, and the new guy seems to be an OCP stoogie and I dont want to support either of them.

I like choices to matter, and I dont like it when a general statement is automatically taken to be a sign of support for one side.

[Waladil]

There is a point where you're very bluntly asked to choose and you pick one, the other, or neither. I think that's the most important check in the game based on public perception of you.

I definitely agree that it feels weird some times when it says you support so-and-so. I chose the same option with Mills and said I'd only join a team worth choosing, quite intentionally leaving out that the team is NOT Mills'.

[Desperado]

They're slimeball politicians. Merely being seen in their presence is publicly perceived as a sign of support. If you talk to them at all you're supporting them, the only way you can avoid that is by not talking to them at all, which is an option that is presented to you.

[Black Hole]

Yeah this was a dumb part of the game where they pretend choices really matter, no matter what you are still robocop neither side actually cared about you and abandons you anyways.

[Sean8102]

This they could have done better.

I had the same thing happen to me.

I got a "you supported x for mayor" message when I talked to them and picked dialogue options that very clearly were not what you'd call endorsements lol

Turns out the way to NOT support them is by ignoring them completely. If you interact with them at all it seems it will count as supporting them. Part of the ending changes depending on who you support or don't.

[Lardo]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Volt:

I dont know what impact this will have on the game, but Im getting very annoyed at the "support X candidate" thing.

When I say "teamwork is important", in absolutely NO WAY is that "I support candidate X". When I say "This is not the right place for this talk", it doesnt mean I "withdraw support". When I say "I wish to be neutral", IT DOESNT MEAN I AM FOR OR AGAINST someone.

Im guessing they couldnt come up with a neutral outcome, but honestly this is slightly more annoying to me than it should be. Mostly because the Mayor is a git, and the new guy seems to be an OCP stoogie and I dont want to support either of them.

I like choices to matter, and I dont like it when a general statement is automatically taken to be a sign of support for one side.

Yes, it's a little annoying, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. If you serve the public trust throughout the game, Kuzak will have the upper hand, if you uphold the law - Mills will. Those conversations ultimately are meant to give more context to help you make the decision, not to sway the story. The choice is ultimately yours to explicitly support whomever you want.

[RageMojo]

Its because the politicians spin it to their favor. That is why you are asked point blank later. The whole point is they are taking advantage of just being seen with you.

[Volt]

I dont mind it if they would "spin my words into their favor". That I would understand. But it seems the support is given or taken on almost random selections. My support for Kuzak was "withdrawn" because I felt a hospital wasnt a place for a politics talk.

I dont assume this is a major point in the game or anything, but it is a headscratcher on why it was implemented the way it was.

[Spectre]

Was the same way. Served the public trust, and due to that, and my saying I'd side with Kuzak over the obvious OCP stooge, thats what folks ran with. Got a lot of "You supported..." uhh, no I just answered questions on how the city was doing. But yeah, this Universe, the politicians are notoriously scummy. I mean, everyone remember what Kuzak was up to in RoboCop 2? Yeah...

Though was confused how after all I did, the good Doctor still was a cynic at the end.

[Volt]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Spectre:

Though was confused how after all I did, the good Doctor still was a cynic at the end.

This *reall* caught me off-guard. Seriously, despite her LISTING me all the reasons why I'm a human and not just a machine, she still has a "remains cynical" and her "bad ending" (I assume, with the model?). It made no sense.

[Lardo]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Spectre:

Was the same way. Served the public trust, and due to that, and my saying I'd side with Kuzak over the obvious OCP stooge, thats what folks ran with. Got a lot of "You supported..." uhh, no I just answered questions on how the city was doing. But yeah, this Universe, the politicians are notoriously scummy. I mean, everyone remember what Kuzak was up to in RoboCop 2? Yeah...

Though was confused how after all I did, the good Doctor still was a cynic at the end.

You obviously haven't done enough.

[Unicorn Gundam]

It doesn't matter anyway as we don't know who's Mayor in RpboCop 3.

[hnom123]

Weird thing, indeed.

[DR_awsomo's]

it's not ideal BUT you can make it clear at the end
when you are asked so don't worry think politics BS,
The press asks you directly and it is all good the polarisation lie who who'd of guest.

[Unicorn Gundam]

You can ignore them.

Mills seems the most canon choice anyway.