Ehm...no. That's not that kind of compression people are talking about. You don't get a loss in quality unless they put lower quality files on the disc/ cartridge. The files are compressed and will be unpacked when needed. This needs cpu resources and could lead to higher loading times.

I'm making comparisons that make sense, you're just making non-sensical or even false comparisons. 

Aren't you a mod?

Compare BotW with something like Skyrim on the Switch, then we'll talk (it's around 14 GB which is acceptable, but then again, Bethesda has been the only major third party publisher that has made an effort with releasing decent games for the Switch). 

There's a difference between lossless and lossy compression. Most every game engine already supports lossy compression for textures. It's called BCN (BC = Block Compression, the N is a number between 1 and 7, each compression being optimized for different things). BCN is also something that hardware can directly consume without any additional processing.

Some might say i'm make an intentionally ridiculous comparison in response to someone who dismisses any points they can't objectively respond to, and who opts to shift the discussion rather than address basic concepts like 'more complex graphics result in larger files sizes', but i assure you, those people couldn't be further from the truth.

Now if you'll excuse me, i need to make a thread angrily questioning why i have to sit around waiting for a 5.7GB SMO download when M64 was only 54MB. It's insulting behaviour from Nintendo.

I'm supposed to be impressed by those screenshots? Like I said, Odyssey looks better than Crash. It's only 5 GB. Not to mention the fact that those two games you mentioned only have 30 fps.

Not related to the topic of size and the BCN.

But there is also those techniques to "compress-not detail" that will render on lower quality what is far and will make the game lighter and also improve drawing distance, but sure some devs make mistakes on it by making the transition not be smooth and generate the popins and "out of foucs" texture.

Pop-in and otherwise non-smooth transitions are a problem of loading data, and selected draw distance, and are not totally related to base texture quality, if the base mipmap size is large enough. When a texture isn't fully loaded, because they no longer have to be, due to sparse virtual textures being a given this gen, the system uses a too small mipmap of the given texture, resulting in a blurry/out of focus appearance. Rage had this problem because there wasn't enough memory on the PS360 to accomodate large enough textures (2K by 2K for a 1080p screen, plus and 2-8 2K by 2K texture tiles for what you need to texture outside the viewing frustum). JPEG transcoding at runtime (JPEG to BCN) is also a thing developers do.

I've recently posted in a similar thread about how Uncharted 3 taught me how huge of a deal this is. I think if devs did what UC3 did and allowed you to download each language pack seperately, that would save tons of space.

I see little reason fro devs not to offer you to keep some unnecessary data outside of your HDD and download. But it really isn't common to see what UC3 done.

Some might say i'm make an intentionally ridiculous comparison in response to someone who dismisses any points they can't objectively respond to, and who opts to shift the discussion rather than address basic concepts like 'more complex graphics result in larger files sizes', but i assure you, those people couldn't be further from the truth.

Now if you'll excuse me, i need to make a thread angrily questioning why i have to sit around waiting for a 5.7GB SMO download when M64 was only 54MB. It's insulting behaviour from Nintendo.