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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario Odyssey file size

curl-6 on 19 September 2017
SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:

Odyssey looks way better than R&C PS3, which while pretty for its time looks flat and muddy compared to Odyssey. The lighting is the main difference; Odyssey's is clearly much more modern and nuanced, as expected from the Switch's far newer GPU.

Then there's resolution: A Crack in Time runs at a mere 960x704, while Odyssey's E3 build was 1280x720 and if Splatoon 2 is anything to go by, the final game may well be considerably higher when docked. Crack in Time also had significant framerate drops.

All in all, R&C is simply no match for Odyssey graphically.

You sure about that? In terms of textures, character model complexity and world geometry, the things that take up file size. Better lighting and effects don't affect file size and should be better 10 years later!
But I admit, my view of R&C Future series does look better in memory than on screenshots. Rose tinted glasses perhaps.

Anyway in comparison R&C Crack in time was 18.6GB, yet that had pre-rendered cutscenes to mask loading times. The actual game was likely far smaller. Plus it had a lot of voice work.

The biggest culprits for file sizes on PS3 did tend to be FMV and audio, plus often storing the same data in multiple places on the disc to improve seek times. Odyssey probably won't have much VA or FMVs, so naturally it would be smaller even if the assest are higher fidelity. Nintendo have also likely made heavier use of data compression due to the small size of Switch's internal storage, while PS3 devs including Insomniac tended not to place a high priority on compression.

File size and graphics are not necessarily closely correlated; there are PS2 games that are bigger in file size than, say, FAST RMX.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 19 September 2017
SvennoJ said:
Aeolus451 said:

I'll be honest and say that I was being a little hyperbolic with that but.....  TLOU required 50 gb of free space if you got it digitally. Physcially, it's 27 gb if I remember correctly. With DLC and updates, it would probably shoot ya over 32 gb easily. So there ya go. Later on in that gen I had to get a bigger HD than my 80 gb one because it wasn't enough space. My 500 gb HD on my PS4 isn't enough these days. 32 GB of storage just seems very small to me but I guess i'm being unreasonable with nintendo.

You're not unreasonable, WiiU deluxe had 32GB internal storage. Why is there no Switch deluxe with 128GB internal, a charging grip instead of the inert plastic one and 1-2 switch included. I would have paid $100 more for that. Yet now I'm looking at file sizes again before buying anything on the eShop, which means I'm simply not checking the eShop at all to save time...

I'm too lazy to go out and shop for a suitable micro SD or whatever goes in where it needs to go in. Yet I had the money burning in my pocket on release day or rather night.

Because 128GB would mean that Switch would have higher price point of at least $50, yes it would be nice that Switch has onother Switch SKU option, but there is no really need for that when evre person can very easily expand memory with any MicroSD. And we know that Nitendo still cant keep up with demand even with 32GB model.

OK, you are too lazy to go out and shop MicroSD, but are you too lazy to order one from internet!? Switch is supporting almost every MicroSD that you can find, and you can order 128GB MicroSD for less than $40.

 

 

Aeolus451 said:
Player2 said:

Prove your point. Name a few PS3 games with a mandatory install above 32 GBs.

I'll be honest and say that I was being a little hyperbolic with that but.....  TLOU required 50 gb of free space if you got it digitally. Physcially, it's 27 gb if I remember correctly. With DLC and updates, it would probably shoot ya over 32 gb easily. So there ya go. Later on in that gen I had to get a bigger HD than my 80 gb one because it wasn't enough space. My 500 gb HD on my PS4 isn't enough these days. 32 GB of storage just seems very small to me but I guess i'm being unreasonable with nintendo.

There is huge difference if you compare PS4 and Switch, on PS4 every game need to be installed on PS4 HDD, on Switch you play games from cartridges and there is no need for instal even if some 3rd party games have some updates that will be installed on Switch memory.

 

 

The_Yoda said:
Aeolus451 said:

NBA 2K18 will require a microSD card to play the full game when it comes out on NS or you'll only be able to play a portion of it. Any game that exceeds or that is right at 32 GB will require a micoSD card to play. Imagine a game like the witcher 3 which is a big game. This isn't really a concern to nintendo gamers who are just gonna play nintendo first party games because nintendo is able to compress or keep their game's file size down Like I said before it's gonna be problematic for anyone wants to play 3rd party games on it and it will likely influence the decision of any third party devs. Nintendo should offer more SKUs with better internal storage or with cards just for the sake of the fans.  

In reponse to your edit, Nintendo has a partnership with scandisk so that likely played a part in the size of the internal memory space. It's possible any company plays around with their SKUs in that sense because they rather people bought one over the other. They definitely do that when they're phasing out a SKU but that's normal. 

I would welcome other SKUs if and when they get their supply under control.  That is once the base unit is readily available (not from scalpers) or even in phasing out the 32GM model in favor of something larger, I just don't think now is the time.  Again my opinion would be very different if they were using proprietary memory for expansion.  I guess I just see this as Nintendo allowing the consumer choice similar to the way Sony has made sure to make swapping hard drives in the PS4 super simple and user friendly. 

Putting Micro SD card in device is definitely much simpler and easier than swapping hard drives in PS4, it's basically same like you puting  Switch cartridge in Switch. :)



Player2 on 19 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Player2 said:

The 27 GB install for TLOU isn't mandatory.

It's the install size for the game.

And you can play the game without it. Optional install files above the lowest storage PS3 SKU didn't stop anybody from playing a game.

Let's stop beating around the bush: You are struggling to find a game with a mandatory install above 32GB, which isn't surprising because by early 2014 the largest mandatory install a PS3 game had was 8GB (GTA V). This is because as long as companies cared about the PS360 userbase, they made sure that their games run on every PS3 and 360 out there.

How many 3DS games run only on the New 3DS? How many Wii games require to use a dual analog controller like the classic controller? History tells us that companies loathe userbase segmentation, yet you're saying in this thread that a Switch SKU with a much larger internal memory would be a successful way to solve the storage problem third parties will encounter, or in other words, that third parties will put a significant amount of games on Switch that won't run on every Switch out there:

Aeolus451 said:
It's good that they're keeping their file sizes for their games really small but they kinda have to with the internal HD space the NS has. I think that this will be a problem that ultimately impends most 3rd party devs/pubs from putting games on the NS. I hope that Nintendo eventually comes up with a NS SKU with a much higher internal HD to accommodate 3rd party devs/pubs who want to bring their games to the NS and gamers who want to play those kind of games without having to buy a miniSD just to play the game.