teigaga said:
Well Skyrim is only 6GB big.
Its not about size of the game/length of the game, its about the type of conetnt and the amount of variety and the quality of that variety. A single room in a big Budget AAA game where the etch out every detail could have as many unqiue assets as the entirety of a big open world terrain that takes 5mins to cross. I don't doubt that Nintendo are extra efficienty and devs working with the PS4/X1 are maybe not as efficient due to 50GB discs, but definitely not to the extent that some Nintendo fans would like to think.
We also shouldn't ignore that FPS games need bigger textures due to the perspective. Probably non of Xenoblades assets would hold up that well when view from a mid/close angle. You can pick pretty any next gen game at random and I'd bet the general texture sizes are twice as detailed as anything you'll see in Xenoblade X. All X's screenshots seem to be low res captures from video but you'll get the picture, it pretty much validates any next gen release being 2x as big a Xenoblade.
Next gen vs Wii U terrain.
Xenoblade being bigger doesn't mean it features more assets. Geological terrain has never been a big storage eater because of it it is reused, the below image of COD is more busy/detailed
Quality wise we can see a night and day comparison between texture quality.
|
Pretty selective screenshots you got there, especially considering some are screenshots from a video stream.
