gasp installs that save some HDD space, ony someone with half a brain would have thought of this. 

You are talking about seek times, not read times. Across a whole disc Blu-ray is slower but Blu-ray has a slightly faster seek time than DVD over a similar sized data sector so unless the placement of game data is very random this shouldn't be an issue.

What's your definition of "convenient"?  If it means not having to get up at all, it's obviously a convenience.  If it means having to find physical storage space for one disk versus many, it's obviously a convenience.  If you're a messy sort of fellow and it means having many fewer disks to misplace, it's obviously a convenience.

The point itself they are trying to make is really premature.  How one game decided to use the Blu-Ray storage does not automatically make it representative of all games that will use Blu-Ray.  It remains to be seen.

Also, it is incorrect to assume that, had the game been broken out into many DVD's, there would be no installations required.  If you look at a game like Mass Effect, you can easily see that some DVD games could really benefit from installs.  That's not even a "maybe it'd be better."  Mass Effect would 100% absolutely benefited from installations despite being on DVD9.

Penny Arcade lost any image of non-partisanship when they developed a game for XBLA.  (Obviously, if people don't have that particular console, they can't buy your game.)  I feel Blu-Ray is progress, just as DVD was progress over the CD.  It's not innovation, but it is progress nevertheless.

Thats no BluRay question. I mean if it had DVD it would still need the install procedure AND you would need to swap discs. I still like games like Uncharted that looked beautiful and didn't need any install time.

I think they mean that it's easier to change a disc 3 times, which might take 30 seconds total, than wait for 3 installs at 5 minutes a piece.

The installs take about 2 minutes, after the initiall 8 minute install. Personally I prefer it as I do not have to get up, and it is more convenient only having one disc
The issue I beleive is with the disc read spead. Anyway, normally, games just have the 1 install at the start and that is that. DMC is an example of where that can lead to quicker loading times. MGS 4 the issue is that there is the one install, then a further one at the start of each act, but if you replay an act, then you will have to do another 2 minute install, which is not too bad, and they you get very very quick load times (a few seconds) in between scenes. There is also an install for MGO I beleive, but I have not played that yet

Lots of conjecture here. We don't know there would be no install times if it was on DVD, we just guess that would be the case. We arm-chair programmers are rarely very good at our jobs. The only people who can understand Konami's seemingly odd choice for multiple installs is Konami, and I imagine they're less than keen to talk about it (and they do make some odd choices: look at the two extra IDs I need just to play MGO!)

That said, a disk swap is certainly better than a 3-minute install if it's an option.

Personally, I'd prefer the bigger storage capacity with no installs or load times. Y'know, like Uncharted gave us, and supposedly some future titles will; however, as it stands now, that doesn't look like it's to be the standard, huh? Only time will tell.

Sorry to go off topic, but having to pay like $6 or $7 to be able to make another character is a little extreme.

On topic - If the install data between acts is overwritten each time, then that's a little bogus. I'd totally understand if it were a one time thing so then you could play the game faster instead of having to wait for EVERYTHING to install, but if not.... ugh.  

I just think is funny the game makes fun of multi disk yet has install between acts. Both multi disk and install suck because is time spent not playing the game. Hopefully someday we won't need neither.