If you can control for 10 to 20 years of compression and efficiency improvements, the different demands of the time (the PS2 had no download concerns, much more disk space than most developers needed, etc), differences in the design of the average PS2 game vs Nintendo one, the storage advantages and disadvantages of PS2 disks vs Switch cartridges (e.g. Switch cartridges can read much quicker than a DVD, and if need be can install onto the internal memory, both of which allow for more compression leeway), and the different pricing incentives each medium provide (space is at a higher premium on a Switch cartridge), then sure, this would make for an interesting discussion.

Once you've controlled for these, it's also worth noting that the average Nintendo title is actually more comparable in size to 360 games than PS2 ones. Despite all of the above, PS2 games average at about 1GB to 3GB.

Well yes, obviously with advancing technololgy you can do things you couldn't before. Those same 1-3gb PS2 games could be done way smaller today.

The point though is more that through time, Nintendo has been consitently much smaller, or at least stayed small. We just had Splatoon 2 and Mario Odyssey release and both are like 3-5 gb in size. I'm not in the mood to look up older game sizes, such as those on the gamecube. But regardless, Gamecube as more powerful than teh ps2 and had better looking games. Their discs were capped at 1.5 gb. PS2 wasn't outrageous, as you said average was 1-3 gbs. So lets say for argument sake that the ps2 and gamecube looked identical in visuals and also same size. Lets look at next gen then.

PS3 starts getting like 20 gb games or more. Wii still sits around 1-5 gbs. The Wii U the same. (a few exceptions) Look at PS4 games. you are now in the 50-100 gb range for a game. The Switch still around 5 gbs per game.

You bring up advancign technology and effeciency as to why we can't compare Switch size to PS2 size. But I use that same argument to say that PS4/One are not taking advantage of the advanced tech and efficiency. THey are looking lazy.

I don't think BOTW is the biggest open world game, is it?

As for size, how much of that comes down to "art style"?

Well yes, obviously with advancing technololgy you can do things you couldn't before. Those same 1-3gb PS2 games could be done way smaller today.

The point though is more that through time, Nintendo has been consitently much smaller, or at least stayed small. We just had Splatoon 2 and Mario Odyssey release and both are like 3-5 gb in size. I'm not in the mood to look up older game sizes, such as those on the gamecube. But regardless, Gamecube as more powerful than teh ps2 and had better looking games. Their discs were capped at 1.5 gb. PS2 wasn't outrageous, as you said average was 1-3 gbs. So lets say for argument sake that the ps2 and gamecube looked identical in visuals and also same size. Lets look at next gen then.

PS3 starts getting like 20 gb games or more. Wii still sits around 1-5 gbs. The Wii U the same. (a few exceptions) Look at PS4 games. you are now in the 50-100 gb range for a game. The Switch still around 5 gbs per game.

You bring up advancign technology and effeciency as to why we can't compare Switch size to PS2 size. But I use that same argument to say that PS4/One are not taking advantage of the advanced tech and efficiency. THey are looking lazy.

Crash has wwaaayyy higher texture quality than anything on the Switch. Like, by a generational margin. Not to mention like 2.5 times the resolution of games like Odyssey.

But it didn't become common in X360 until the arcade version wasn't the most common use. It took quite some time for installing in X360 to become common from what I gauged on VGC.

Unless those guys were just bitching at Sony for having it mandatory (and most games didn't even had much of the data installed) were already installing for the added perfomance, but used the point just for console war sake.

It's an extremely linear platformer, I don't see anything on that game that couldn't be done on the Switch, besides the resolution perhaps. 

Have you ever even touched a Switch game? Take a look at the Lost Kingdom in Super Mario Odyssey, it has some impressive lighting, texture work and water shaders. 

Well yes, obviously with advancing technololgy you can do things you couldn't before. Those same 1-3gb PS2 games could be done way smaller today.

The point though is more that through time, Nintendo has been consitently much smaller, or at least stayed small. We just had Splatoon 2 and Mario Odyssey release and both are like 3-5 gb in size. I'm not in the mood to look up older game sizes, such as those on the gamecube. But regardless, Gamecube as more powerful than teh ps2 and had better looking games. Their discs were capped at 1.5 gb. PS2 wasn't outrageous, as you said average was 1-3 gbs. So lets say for argument sake that the ps2 and gamecube looked identical in visuals and also same size. Lets look at next gen then.

PS3 starts getting like 20 gb games or more. Wii still sits around 1-5 gbs. The Wii U the same. (a few exceptions) Look at PS4 games. you are now in the 50-100 gb range for a game. The Switch still around 5 gbs per game.

You bring up advancign technology and effeciency as to why we can't compare Switch size to PS2 size. But I use that same argument to say that PS4/One are not taking advantage of the advanced tech and efficiency. THey are looking lazy.