By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - XCX new biggest Nintendo game at 22.7GB

Metallox on 06 April 2015
SubiyaCryolite said:
Metallox said:

So maybe Nintendo's "magical compression" still exists, because Monolith Soft is the one that made XCX, not Nintendo. 

*facepalm*

What? 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Around the Network
sam987 on 06 April 2015

Sadly the disc is not big enough for XCX..



teigaga on 06 April 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
teigaga said:
So this debunks the theory of Nintendo having magical compression. It all comes down to the type of game

Or this game would be 60 GB on other hands, How can we know?

This game is waaaay bigger than all those 50GB games lately.

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.






Skullwaker on 06 April 2015

Daaaaamn. Considering Nintendo's compression skillz, this is huge.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Clyde32 on 06 April 2015
Skullwaker said:
Daaaaamn. Considering Nintendo's compression skillz, this is huge.


It's mostly EAD and SPD that do the hardcore compression. DKC:TF was pretty large as well.



Around the Network
Nem on 06 April 2015

I really dont wish for Japanese voices on this one. The localisation of the original was really good. I hope they use the same studio for it.



Samus Aran on 06 April 2015
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.



teigaga on 06 April 2015
Samus Aran said:

Pretty selective screenshots you got there, especially considering some are screenshots from a video stream.

Reading my points do you genuinely think these help your the argument or are you just being difficult?:p  The first is quite literally barron and the later two still don't compare 



Samus Aran on 06 April 2015
teigaga said:

Reading my points do you genuinely think these help your the argument or are you just being difficult?:p  The first is quite literally barron and the later two still don't compare 

They look better than the generic stuff you posted (world design wise).

Anyway, if there's one game that has a barren, lifeless city it's Infamous Second Son.



teigaga on 06 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
teigaga said:

Reading my points do you genuinely think these help your the argument or are you just being difficult?:p  The first is quite literally barron and the later two still don't compare 

They look better than the generic stuff you posted.

Anyway, if there's one game that has a barren, lifeless city it's Infamous Second Son.

But we're not talking about prettiness or whats less generic, we're talking about file sizes and the amount of unique assets and the texture quality of those assets :/

And loool @ you calling the City in Infamous lifeless in Xenoblade thread.  I'll leave this here, but clearly your too emotionally invested to have a discussion on the topic.