Well there is some truth to this.  With games installing being mandatory, some common sense was hurled out the window.  Lest we forget some of the fiascos of this generation, the most egregious being Titanfall which came in at 50 GB, of which 30GB were gosh darn SOUND FILES.  30GB of sound files for a game with limited soundtrack, no large scale campaign with cutscenes, minimal dialogue.  And its not the only offender.  I dare say a large chunk of games on the current gen could shave off 5, 10, some even 20 gigs with essentially no loss of quality.  It can be that preposterous. 

Others are much better about this though, it's not the whole AAA sector.  But there is a lot of this crap going on.

Ever hear of beyond 2 souls? Its about 32GB...... Does that mean its twice as big as BotW? MGS4 was 35GB........

point is (again) the siz of a games world has very litle to do with its actual data size.

It is not a question of whether or not they know how.  Developers choose to not compress their files because there is very little incentive to do so, while there is a significant enough opportunity cost. It is very easy to find lossless compressed repacks on PC that shave off dozens of gigs with minimal loss of video and/or audio quality. The question is whether or not the developers (and the publishers funding them) think it is worth it.  

Developers could always release two versions: one lossless compressed version and an uncompressed version. For most people with their video and sound systems they won't notice a significant difference between them. For the few who have high quality entertainment systems, they can just download the uncompressed version.  But like I said, that is more work.

Then there is also the question of using pre-rendered assets in games which do not need them. That is why many Nintendo games are small, their cutscenes tend to use inengine reuseable assets. 

So no, it is not inevitable to have games that large if the developer chose to. Hard-drive space, and high speed internet reduce the risks and benefits of such efforts, though. 

And I don't see why it is relevant when a game gets that big. The critique still stands. 

There is a reason for that too. Titanfall was a "launch window" title. Case in point, titalfall 2 (that even had a single player campaign and was an all round bigger game) came in at under 35GB. Basically, what was used just for sound files in part one was used for practically the whole game in part two.

Don't forget running uncompressed audio takes up less cpu muscle freeing up cycles for other stuff. At that time in the XB1 life, respawn probably felt they would take the hit on data size to get the game running smoothly in time for launch.

Just in case you didn’t know, the Switch has expandable memory through a microSD slot, apprentally up to 2TB in the near future 

lol.... so i knew that it supports up to 32GB carts and didnt know it also supports expandable storage? Anyways, thanks...... I know though.

But thats not really the point I was making anyways. Its saving grace is that its not a requirement to install games for them to work normally. Thats all I will say about that.

You guys are comparing the big games from PS4 and XBO to those from Nintendo...

Nintendo games don't have much high resolution textures and other assets are usually kept to a minimum compared to games like GTA V, The Witcher 3, or Uncharted 4. They also don't make use of voice acting as much (if at all, in certain cases), so there aren't much lossless audio files in their games, nor do they make extensive use of pre-rendered videos.

It's not that Nintendo do magic with compression (seriously, guys... -__-). It's simply that they make games that don't require a lot of space to begin with.

Halo: The Master Chief Collection takes up more than 60Gb. Pretty sure it's trending towards 80-90Gb with ODST? Halo 5 was fairly large the last time I looked as well.

The Elder Scrolls Online is pretty large as well. About to get larger thanks to the Morrowind expansion.

The average size is probably around 30-40Gb though, It's the DLC that is pushing game install sizes up, It doesn't help that allot of games are using lossless 7.1 or better audio and full 1080P video either.

The Carts should not be a limitation for the Switch anyway, if anything it should be an advantage, minus costs.
It's not the same comparison of the PS1's CD and the Nintendo 64 carts, that's for sure.

The thing with Carts is that you shouldn't have to install games.
It's transfer rates should be high enough to mitigate that requirement. - Of course if you want DLC, Patches and such it needs to download and install to internal storage.

So basically 7 reasons you should go physical.

I don't know about others, but I was not speaking about compression when I said, 

"Breath of the Wild is impressively small. I love how Nintendo knows how to keep their games small. 60GB games are annoying."

I was more thinking about how their game design lends itself to smaller games, hence the bolded portion says "to keep" rather than "to make". 

That is much more impressive (albeit from a game design perspective rather than a technical one) than using some obscure compression algorithm that shaves off a few gigs, in my opinion. 

Many games gain very little to nothing from pre-rendered cutscenes and uncompressed audio, yet the developers/publishers still choose to go that path because they want to compete with other AAA titles or it is all that they know.