HOME | DD

Multiverse13 In reply to Multiverse13 [2013-10-01 05:11:34 +0000 UTC]

However, a Ratchet and Clank and Treasure Planet crossover sounds very tempting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Daniel4life In reply to r4tchet4ever [2008-06-29 16:28:55 +0000 UTC]

You sound so scrict, Very nice One sandy, its hilairious!!! XD!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sandy87 In reply to Lombaxchick [2006-06-14 08:31:19 +0000 UTC]

She ought to...I mean, he weighs what, 140 lbs? I seriously doubt she weighs that much, even - Ratchet's all muscle from running around carrying big guns; Sasha sits on her bum all day (unless she gets up and goes Holotraining when you're not watching...).

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

pyrocajun2704 In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-21 05:47:18 +0000 UTC]

Dallas announced in Deadlocked that he's 97.5 lbs. Now whether or not that's what Insomniac considers "Accurate" is anyone's guess.

As for the 140 lb. thing, they've fed you BS information before, so I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote that was just tired of hearing those kinds of questions and just through out a random number to make you happy. 97 lbs. makes more sense considering his height and size. He is, after all, extremely slim and wirey.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

comandoracht In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-25 07:23:13 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps, but couldn't Ratchet's weight vary from planet to planet or planet to space station, even galaxy to galaxy? Perhaps Insomniac's estimate was based on his weight in his own home world. Maybe his weight was estimated by averaging his weight on every planet in the Solona solar system.

As for the picture, it reminds me of the online squatting I use to do. Everyone loved a good squat party.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to comandoracht [2006-06-29 03:18:52 +0000 UTC]

Well, since the physics of the game's battle engine don't vary from planet to planet, Insomniac apparently never considered that when the game was in the programming stage. (Of course, that is probably WAY too complicated to fit the game on a single DVD.)

I had thought of the same thing, also, and initially arrived at your second conclusion: that it must be an average. If not, Insomniac is just full of crap like they usually are, and never considered gravitational differences. However, my second conclusion makes a bit more sense: Insomniac, when programming their battle engine, tends to use the metric system, so, when programming the game's physics, they more than likely utilized Ratchet's mass in kg, not his weight. Mass is a comparative measure, so it does not vary with differences in gravitational pull like weight, which is a direct measure of sustained force.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sandy87 In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-21 20:58:31 +0000 UTC]

True. But Dallas ALSO said that he hates puppies and candy. (now, granted, we've never seen Ratchet eat a Hershey bar or kiss a dog, but still...)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-22 18:39:43 +0000 UTC]

lol Good point, but 97 lbs just makes more sense considering Ratchet's size. I'm 5'10", fairly broad-shouldered, very muscular, and I have very little body fat (I run track), and I weigh 170 lbs. Considering that I'm probably almost twice Ratchet's size and am similarly muscular, 140 lbs seems way too heavy for that skinny little guy. Also, since Ratchet is about the size of an average flyweight boxer (who are trained specifically to be small, yet solid muscle), 97 lbs seems to be the perfect weight for him.

...not that I think anyone should believe anything Dallas says. ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-22 18:51:17 +0000 UTC]

Oops. I said I'm 170 lbs. I'm more like 163. Sorry.

Hey, that makes my point even stronger.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sandy87 In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-22 19:41:31 +0000 UTC]

True, Insomniac's data does seem...off...but then, Lombaxes age 5 years for our 1 and are supposed to live 150 years (which makes them like 750 relatively...furry little Methuselas!). I love Insomniac's impossibilities.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-23 02:30:29 +0000 UTC]

Well, think of parrots. They're kind of the same case. They develop quickly, but live almost 100 years sometimes. All they were referring to with that was the speed of childhood development, which varies with every species; there's never a set ratio of the developmental period to the adult period. It actually makes sense in a way. Quick development is an evolutionary advantage, especially in dangerous habitats.

Hmm... I wonder how long humans could live if we had access to Solanian medical technology... Nanotech must work wonders for life expectancy.

But you're right. Sometimes Insomniac's data just doesn't add up. That's ok, though, because it's fun to think about.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sandy87 In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-23 04:54:19 +0000 UTC]

Parrots grow up quickly and live a long time. Dogs age quickly their whole lives. Insomniac didn't say anything about it being JUST while they were kids, so I assumed it was a whole-life equation. But yeah, Nanotech probably does do some awesome stuff with anti-aging.

Then again, I also read somewhere that a dog's natural lifespan is actually closer to 25-30 years, and that 15 has become the standard just because of what's in the dog food (have you ever looked up rendered meat? Eeewww, Concrete Jungle part 2!). I really ought to cook for my dogs...but I'm too lazy to do it often. XP

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-24 05:29:49 +0000 UTC]

Yeah. True, but that's what I meant that the ratio of developmental time to adult time is different for each species. It makes perfect sense that lombaxes could develop quickly and, once fully developed, age more or less the same as humans. Idk, that's just the way I see it, becuase 130 years is way too long to be an old person. It makes sense to me, at least.

Yes, we need to hurry up and develop more advanced nanotech. The possibilities are too endless to let the technology go to waste.

Oh, I'm sure. They can do some discusting things to meat. I've heard stories that have haunted my dreams. XD

How would you cook for a dog? I'm curious. How do you make it healthy for them?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sandy87 In reply to pyrocajun2704 [2006-06-24 22:05:39 +0000 UTC]

You cook for dogs like you cook for a person, but with a larger proportion of meat to vegitables and grains, and you tend have to purree the veggies, more or less, since they have an even harder time than us digesting cellulose (you think finding whole corn in your poop is bad, check your dog's...). There are a million websites out there that give you recipee ideas for how to cook for dogs (some, like the BARF diet, isn't really "cooking"; it's more like throwing a raw steak in the bowl and mashing carrots on it). Dogs are pretty easy to feed, actually (if they won't eat it, wrap it in cheese or drown it in broth ). It's cats that you have trouble with. Cats are picky.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pyrocajun2704 In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-30 03:00:45 +0000 UTC]

Cool. Thanks for the info. I might consider doing that for him sometimes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lombaxchick In reply to Sandy87 [2006-06-14 08:36:09 +0000 UTC]

In other words - The Latest and the Greatest Reality Holo-Vid Show of the Century: What Your Fandoms Do When They Think Their Fans Aren't Looking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kingtut98 In reply to Lombaxchick [2006-06-14 19:58:28 +0000 UTC]

I'm not sure that would work- somebody's always looking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sandy87 In reply to kingtut98 [2006-06-14 22:39:18 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, but it's when they THINK their FANS aren't looking. So if they just think their fans aren't looking (but they are), or only-nonfans are looking, then they might still do strange things...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0