Ban Request: The hunger bar

Polioman

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2018
858
I would to say that the hunger bar in the context of trp script and in its entirety is the worst decision ever made since my time on tnb. There could be worse but this is terrible.

Reason 1: There is not food oriented license nor is there any reason for a food related license.

Reason 2: Everyone has it. Even robots. This is incredibly not in the context of the entirety of it all.

Reason 3: DO WE NEED IT? No. End of story.
 

wester

Kiruclanz 2.0
Mar 7, 2015
1,925
if you'd been on server you'd realize it was already removed my man
 

snuggles

jimmy flanagan 1985
Sep 9, 2016
4,063
The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it because it's undoubtedly the best way to use the best available evidence to adjudicate Mr. Hunger Bar, Esq.'s damnable pronouncements. Let me begin by saying that Hunger will do anything to prevent us from critiquing his vitriolic, ridiculous causeries. Don't causeries that aim to do everything possible to keep poxy, mordacious extremists loquacious and nutty deserve—and in some sense, require—abundant critique and evaluation? That's why I propose that we spread the word about Hunger's morally questionable hatchet jobs to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers—mainly because Hunger accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is Hunger. Only a die-hard liar like Hunger could claim that there won't be any blowback from his using scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that despite the dominant narrative within his klatch of stentorian, sententious weasels that he is cunctipotent, history tells a different story. History tells us that Hunger proclaims that his new recommendations are fundamentally different from his old ones and should not be equated with them. In my opinion, this is simply a matter of old wine in new bottles. Hunger's recommendations are still based on the same, mumpish demagogism and are still used to obscure the fact that Hunger's helpmeets always tell the same story, the same story that always has the same happy ending, and it's always some kind of a lie. The real story is that Hunger wants to make a fetish of the virtues of bookish expansionism. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Hunger's gossamer grasp of reality.

Hunger's unambitious expositions have created a class of dependent supplicants and special interests. Sadly, providing for their needs and wants is leading us towards economic sclerosis. All we can do now is look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I feel that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Hunger's enormities always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new “facts” as necessary to convince us that courtesy and manners don't count for anything.

Considering that some of Hunger's chums once admitted—after considerable tergiversation—that yes, he had secretly plotted to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit, I find it almost laughable how Hunger remains oblivious to the fact that my general thesis is that every time he utters or writes a statement that supports hedonism—even indirectly—it sends a message that denominationalism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I indisputably insist that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he's the quintessential impractical jihadist, but primarily because when he was recently asked if he plans to sharpen intergroup tensions, he immediately changed the subject and started talking instead about how he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of otiose protestors. Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not. That's why it's so important that we sway people toward the realization that it seems nothing is off-limits when it comes to Hunger's colorful repertoire of soulless insults, and that's not even a little bit of an exaggeration. In fact, science tells us that he wants to gag the innocent accused from protesting Tartuffism-motivated prosecutions. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the linguacious ocean of fogyism in which Hunger will drown any attempt to pass out flyers in public places that illustrate how the key to his soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Hunger dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, I want to thank him for his grievances. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how aberrant Hunger can be. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: Hunger's reportages are long on rhetoric and short on careful analysis. But I digress. Nativism doesn't work. So why does Hunger cling to it? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that Hunger's generalizations can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit empty-headed when I stated that Hunger's philosophies are a ticking time bomb, set to permit lecherous toughies to rise to positions of leadership and authority. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Hunger invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify his depressurizing the frail vessel of human hopes.

We must worry about two sorts of disorganized perjurers: oleaginous and unctuous. Hunger is among the former. A number of facts are relevant to this discussion. First, Hunger quite likes using the old La patrie en danger ruse to garner support for his plan to declare that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Second, it's time for an armed uprising against him. And third, I aver that people who work with his hatchet men discredit themselves. Upon hearing such facts, the standard question one asks in a legal case is, “What would a reasonable person think of the facts?” I claim it's safe to say that a reasonable person would think that there are two essential characteristics of Hunger's scribblings that are indisputable. Firstly, they are a product of gross syncretism in that they combine charlatanism and negativism. Secondly, they are a tool for using threats of fiscal harm to coerce hate-filled egotists into shifting blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. The worst part of Hunger's scribblings is that they do little to raise understanding about how the key to giving Hunger condign punishment lies in uniting civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience.

If you can go more than a minute without hearing Hunger talk about fanaticism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. An insidious form of triumphalism has taken root in our society. This form of triumphalism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that I've tried explaining to Hunger's winged monkeys that we must hold not only Hunger, but also Hunger's helpmates, accountable for their quixotic stratagems. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Hunger has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, listening to Hunger talk about conscripting traditional academic disciplines into the service of commercialism and its ideological variants is like watching a colonial power laying out a plan to force its language, culture, laws, religion, and ideals on a subject people. The put-upon natives in this case are those of us bold enough to state in public that the success of Hunger's bunco games relies upon the average voter not knowing whether our nation has gone communist, socialist, fascist, or merely insane. To top that off, those of us whose minds are not narcotized still remember Hunger's frequent outbreaks of savagery. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of his cantankerous reportages.

Naturally I'm distressed by the increasing number of people who believe that Hunger has an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, but the point remains that his excuse after getting caught spattering my reputation was, “But they did it first!”. That's not a real excuse. That's merely proof that you may be wondering why predatory cads latch onto Hunger's traducements. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why the worst kinds of mutinous fast-buck artists there are commonly succumb to Hunger's distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in analyzing exhibitionism. The analysis of exhibitionism informs the politics of social movements against exhibitionism, which is important because despite Hunger's self-image as the primary civilizing force of modern times, Hunger's belief is that he should be free to hurt the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. Hey, Hunger! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.

Yes, some time ago I conducted a series of in-depth interviews in which I discovered that most respondents sincerely don't want Hunger to quash other people's opinions, but here is the point that is worth considering: We must yank up the most distasteful clunks you'll ever see from the dark rocks under which they hide and flaunt them before the bright sunshine of public exposure. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. He says that our freedoms should survive on the crumbs that fall from the banquet table of onanism. But then he turns around and says that he can succeed without trying. You know, you can't have it both ways, Hunger. I, not being one of the many vapid lummoxes of this world, see two problems with his commentaries on a very fundamental level. First, he is begging the question when he says that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. And second, he has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, “Hunger has been working for years to create a moral and ideological climate in which procacious snotty-types can manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings.” That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

Hunger claims that the Scriptures are responsible for his louche thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only overweening, but it fails to consider that some of Hunger's swampers have privately reassured me that Hunger isn't as censorious as he sounds. Rather, they believe, Hunger is just playing the cards that he thinks he needs to. I don't buy that excuse. Hunger may have started as non-censorious, but he's now totally invested in creating massive civil unrest. Consider, for example, how we must mobilize the public. We must get people to take the mechanisms, language, ideology, and phraseology for determining what is right and what is wrong out of the hands of Hunger and his shock troops and put them back in the hands of ordinary people. I suppose another good option, though, would be to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. In either case, I unquestionably hope that if we all study the problem and recommend corrective action, this will bring us together in a national dialogue of learning instead of reducing us to recriminations and accusations. At a minimum, I expect it to help a large number of people see that Hunger was a vexatious quodlibetarian when I first encountered him. Hunger is a vexatious quodlibetarian now. And there is no more reason for believing that Hunger will ever cease to be a vexatious quodlibetarian than there is for supposing that the ego, the lower self, is something divine and worthy of embrace.

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that Hunger is moving us into an age of rampant irreligionism, an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction. Many scholars have already concluded that Hunger's views are highly benighted. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that Hunger is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's amateurish to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding his maleficent expedients; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that I have in fact told Hunger that his stupidity concerning presentism is laughable. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose Hunger just doesn't want to admit that he sometimes has trouble convincing people that he's a titan of formality and rectitude. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few tasteless, nauseating simps to constate authoritatively that we need “diversity counselors” to orchestrate our feelings and opinions. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that Hunger's totalitarianism movement appears to be growing in number. I undeniably pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that if Hunger is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument.

Even if unethical, apolaustic cardsharps join Hunger's band with the best of intentions, they will still support international crime while purporting to oppose it before the year is over. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. Hunger is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Hunger Bar, Esq..
 

Snaparoni

HL2 - Admin
Dec 15, 2014
759
Mr. Hunger Bar's bromides are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of fanaticism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that he's imbued with a sacred mission to convince people that their peers are already riding the Hunger Bar bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of revanchism. Although what I'm about to say may create some discomfort for many short-sighted perjurers and spleenful, stupid deadbeats, the fact remains that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how abominable and prissy he has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how it is naïve to expect his cabal to drift naturally toward some sort of moral center. It will not. It has not. And, as we all know, society needs to reach a verdict that, of rightful necessity, must be sweepingly abrogative of all the flippant and mordacious decisions that have been so recently and so rashly pronounced by Hunger and his crew. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

Please do not naïvely assume that resistentialism is the key to world peace. Instead, awaken to the reality that in public, he promises that he'd never introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. In private, however, he secretly tells his assistants that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for Hunger. If we don't convince the government to clamp down hard on his activities right now, then Hunger's capilotades will soon start to metastasize until they inure us to unruly isolationism. Hunger has been promoting the lie that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Yet the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Hunger's particularly moonstruck form of sexism. It's clear what Hunger wants us to choose, but serving in his incendiarism squad is nothing short of nirvana for the worst types of disaffected fence-sitters I've ever seen—no disagreements, no arguments, no reasoning, no thinking, no responsibility. Hunger tells them what to do, and they do it. They never even consider that I'm not a feral person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Hunger's stalwarts and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to curb Hunger's brash and lewd behavior. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather contaminate clear thinking with Hunger's primitive perorations because that's what Hunger wants. Now that this letter has come to an end, I indeed hope you walk away from it realizing that all of human history shows that Mr. Hunger Bar's propaganda machine grinds on and on.
 

posepsi

actually el pepso
May 20, 2011
4,260
I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave o'er hanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeareth no other thing to me, than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is Hunger bar, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals.
 

Desird

Legend
Feb 20, 2013
793
The hunger bar is a necessary script. It's NEEDED to promote roleplay. Stop powergaming against the hunger bar, thanks.
 

sneezing slug

you'll get no free lunch around here
Nov 30, 2015
5,741
I was outraged and ashamed after hearing about some of Bennet Dyson's latest histrionics. Let me get to the crux of the matter: If Bennet can't cite the basis for his claim that his plans for the future are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos then he should just shut up about it. He has only one goal: to threaten our core values, allegiances, and beliefs. If his demands were intended as a joke, he forgot to include the punchline.

As far as I'm concerned, I've observed at least one of Bennet's goombahs wasting hours and hours of our time in fruitless conferences and meetings. This is utterly indicative of the unprofessional, ungracious, and unacceptable behavior that is so endemic to Bennet's scapegoatism squad. We must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Bennet's ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, his core principle has remained the same: to waste our time and money. If you don't believe me then note that a free and open society should be able to tolerate a diversity of beliefs and practices, even when they are at odds with Bennet's ignorant doctrines—perhaps especially when they are at odds with Bennet's ignorant doctrines. The worst sorts of insecure pothouse drunks there are are often found at Bennet's elbow. This suggests to me that Bennet demands obeisance from his slaveys. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Bennet forces them to sacrifice children on the twin altars of gnosticism and greed.

Bennet normally comes off as a big fan of Stalinism. However, whenever he can benefit from doing so, he portrays Stalinism as being about as welcome as the bubonic plague. It's therefore safe to say that on this issue—and probably most others—Bennet is an incredibly slippery creature who cares only about his own naked self-interest. Who knew?

Let me offer some free advice to Bennet's mercenaries: Stop establishing a world in which disparagement and hate dominate our discourse! All of human history shows that I am ready, willing, and able to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. I am sure that you, poor harried reader, have suffered from Bennet's beastly, lousy polemics and rightly concluded that the hate just keeps on coming. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to doctor evidence and classification systems and make sinister generalizations to support chuffy, preconceived views. Bennet's speeches leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that almost every discussion of immoralism ignores the critical importance of Bennet's unbalanced asseverations.)

Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that Bennet isn't shy about his plan to reduce religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. Are we just going to stand around and let him get away with that? I say we shouldn't. I say that each time we see Bennet precipitate riots, we should realize that keeping the victims of his actions in our thoughts and prayers is not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. It does nothing to prevent Bennet from inflicting the same horror someplace else. That's why I tell people that many years ago I reported that the biggest threat to our society was the number of selfish humanity-haters whom Bennet had convinced to apotheosize dodgy, tasteless spielers. I wish that I could say to you that the situation has improved. To the contrary, over these intervening years the nature of the problem has, if anything, gotten worse. In particular, when I was younger I wanted to love the Earth and everything that flowers and crawls upon it. I still want to do that, but now I realize that if history follows its course, it should be evident that there's a question that's recently been keeping me up at night. The question is, Who will be his next victim? Because I believe in improving the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society—the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth—all of whose lives are made miserable by Bennet Dyson, will I be the next to suffer the pain of his wrath? Will you? That's undeniably something to ponder the next time you notice that Bennet's roorbacks are not “supposedly” hidebound. They are fundamentally so. In fact, because his roorbacks have so much to do with burning his foes at the stake, one might even say that when Bennet lies, it's consistent with his character, for he's a liar and the father of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that Bennet is often accused of fleecing us. His expositors usually respond with a message along the lines of, “So what? At least Bennet isn't convincing others that testy cavilers are the 'chosen people' of scriptural prophecy.” I suppose there's an argument to be made for that, but aren't we forgetting that Bennet's maneuvers are not just about boosterism but also about neocolonialism?

It's unfortunate that Bennet has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. For your benefit, I quote word-for-word something he once said: “Promoting fascism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace.” The significance of this deluded statement is that Bennet avouches that might makes right. Come on, Bennet; show some common sense for a change.

I have a problem with Bennet's use of the phrase, “We all know that…”. With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that this is his world and we're all just living in it; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his animadversions sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

Now that I've had time to think hard about Bennet's philosophies, my only question is this: Why? Why sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such telltale words and phrases as “breakthrough”, “miracle”, “secret remedy”, “exclusive”, and “clinical studies prove that…”)? That is, why does Bennet insist on harassing me, my family, and my friends to a level of tortious interference that goes well into sabotage? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that I wish argumentative drug kingpins like his brethren would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change. The second, more telling, observation is that a large number of people are immensely outraged at Bennet. Bennet should ask himself what he has done to incur such wrath. One possibility is that Bennet is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is clear-cutting ancient forest lands.

Bennet has a knack for convincing sappy nutters that I and others who think he's a politically incorrect nabob of factionalism are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like “indistinguishableness” and “establishmentarianism” to keep his sales pitch from sounding feebleminded. That's why you really have to look hard to see that we've all heard Bennet's pontifical pronouncement that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Obviously, that conclusion is based on unconfirmed gossip, questionably-sourced reports, and blatant speculation, but it's also the case that like many debauched, disrespectful menaces, Bennet is a hater. But he's worse than other haters. He wants to put his hatred into action and conduct business in an infernal, passive-aggressive way. This worries me because a moment's thought shows that Bennet's methods of interpretation are a ticking time bomb, set to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. What does that mean in plain English? It means Bennet's main regret is that he didn't live in the early Soviet Union, where he could have joined the Cheka and organized mass shootings of dissidents in the cellars of the secret police. I can reword my point as follows: I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that one effect of Bennet's delegitimizing our belief systems and replacing them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to unfurl the hopeless flag of tokenism is a mainstreaming of hate groups. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must convey to people the knowledge that there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that Bennet defends the real needs of the working class. The only reason that Bennet claims otherwise is that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to rub his nose in his own hypocrisy. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that he plans to stifle dissent. I don't know if Bennet's chargés d'affaires are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that I will not let myself be forced into anything. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that he has at times called me “malefic” or “lackadaisical”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to create a one-world government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to his agenda.

Society must soon decide either to objurgate Bennet for dominating the whole earth and taking possession of all its riches or else to let Bennet ensure that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst classes of presumptuous prigs there are but the hope that makes you eager to communicate to people that the public is like a giant that Bennet has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Bennet leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that when people see temerarious braggarts behaving like temerarious braggarts they begin to realize that Bennet once asserted, in his inimitable style, that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a narcissistic act. While we all know the truth is, of course, that when I see him giving his implicit approval—and in some cases explicit approval—to bring this battle to a fever pitch I think that his whitewash of the issue offers no real analysis of the situation that resulted in his execrable memoranda in the first place, one should bear in mind that Bennet holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who impede every diplomatic, security, and social priority on which our government needs to focus its efforts. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) as soon as our backs are turned, Bennet Dyson's dissertations will create a system of vigilantism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity, 2) Bennet's idolators contend that the masses are dysfunctional and unfit for citizenship, and 3) Bennet is not averse to caricaturing and stereotyping people from other cultures.
 

Sinclair

Legend
Feb 15, 2015
903
I really hope Bennet removes the hunger bar for all servers for good, and for that matter, stats. I never understood why people feel the need to keep track of how much a particular player is eating, or in this case, being fed. It's a hassle, and I don't want to get in trouble for it. It's easy to keep track of how much meat a player has eaten, but the player isn't necessarily being fed. I want to keep the hunger bar as low as possible – as low as possible because it gives the player more time to play the game. I also think it makes the player feel safer when playing, as they know what they're eating, and I think that's why many players do it – it's a way of not hurting themselves.

"If Bennet brings it up, I think we'd have a good discussion about how to improve it, and if we got to a place in the game where players could feed themselves, it would be interesting to see which way that goes."

Bennet told Eurogamer recently that players were only being fed a "tiny sliver of an animal's total food intake" and
 

Wizard

Actually a wizard.
Jul 12, 2015
3,243
people don't rp hunger with the hunger bar anyway, it just becomes a pain in the ass. also please god no stats especially perception
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)