Uh....what? Are you proving my point or trying to go against it? Depending on what the 3 games are, then yes, I'd prefer 3 games rather than 1 game on 3 disks. But it would depend on the game, because technically you'd still get 3 disks either way. If it's 3 different games then sure, I'd rather have 3 games than 1 game on 3 disks.RikSharp said:isnt that the matrix... or the lord of the rings...Jumplion said:But let's get back to why the whole "change is bad" feel is stupid; people saying that it's fine for a game to be multi-disked.Onmi said:Condense
While I can accept a 2-disked game every so not very very often (very very VERY not often), and a 3 by a very small stretch, to say that it's perfectly fine for games to be multi-disked is absolutely ludicrous.
Think, how would people treat an author if the author made the book so that you finish a book, then you have to get up and read the other. You know, i'd think they'd call it A FREAKING SEQUEL!!
if they made games about the main plotline of those books/movies (and BTW i know they have) then by your logic, 3 games are better than 1 game on 3 disks...
as a long standing jrpg fan (among other things) i really dont mind multiple disks. just means that theres more than can fit on one disk and thats no bad thing.
If the developers have a ton of content, good for them, but there really is no reason to have 3 disks. Maybe 2, that'll be a stretch, but there should be no reason why we can't technologically get past the whole multi-disking.