Star Wars Star Wars Jedi: Survivor - sequel to Fallen Order

[cruel]

Getting this day 1, really liked the first one. Just wandering though, who is going to buy it for $70, if you can just get it on EA Pro for $15 and easily beat in one month? Unless they will make the game 3x as long as the previous one, but unlikely.

Sent from my KB2005 using Tapatalk

 

[deuxhero]

It doesn't have MCA, cute Twi'lek girls, or real Star Wars, plus it's by EA and DIsney. Why care?

 

[JDR13]

100 motherfucking 55 GB!!!?!?!?111*?? Bloody fools are not using decent compression methods and using game size an anti piracy move.

Or they are just truly incompetent.

The giant game sizes are because consoles can't or won't use resource decompression during runtime. Yes, it's been this long and consoles still can't handle a simple task like that, so better free up those 150 gigs on your NVMe in honor of console players if you want to play a modern game on PC.

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

 

[Ezekiel]

It doesn't have MCA, cute Twi'lek girls, or real Star Wars, plus it's by EA and DIsney. Why care?

Twi'leks are ugly. What's MCA?

 

[Wunderbar]

It doesn't have MCA, cute Twi'lek girls, or real Star Wars, plus it's by EA and DIsney. Why care?

Twi'leks are ugly. What's MCA?

a song by Village People.

 

[430am]

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

Or you know, the fact that it's a whole different game, a sequel at that, which most likely has way more textures, sounds, and especially cosmetics. And other stuff that nobody knows about yet.

 

[JDR13]

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

Or you know, the fact that it's a whole different game, a sequel at that, which most likely has way more textures, sounds, and especially cosmetics. And other stuff that nobody knows about yet.

No

 

[430am]

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

Or you know, the fact that it's a whole different game, a sequel at that, which most likely has way more textures, sounds, and especially cosmetics. And other stuff that nobody knows about yet.

No

As in no arguments? Gotcha.

 

[JDR13]

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

Or you know, the fact that it's a whole different game, a sequel at that, which most likely has way more textures, sounds, and especially cosmetics. And other stuff that nobody knows about yet.

No

As in no arguments? Gotcha.

As in your explanation doesn't really cut it.

 

[DemonKing]

That doesn't really explain it because the first game was also on consoles and used the same engine. I'm not sure how they mananged to go from 55GB for Fallen Order to 155GB for Survivor when they both use Unreal 4.

Or you know, the fact that it's a whole different game, a sequel at that, which most likely has way more textures, sounds, and especially cosmetics. And other stuff that nobody knows about yet.

This, plus it's exclusive to current gen systems so they can go all out instead of being restricted to earlier console generations.

 

[430am]

As in your explanation doesn't really cut it.

Surely you'll have an argument why that's so, being very informed on how consoles use runtime decompression and the primary causes of bloated game size, right? As well as generational leaps. If you'd be so kind to enlighten us instead of handwaving.

 

[JDR13]

As in your explanation doesn't really cut it.

Surely you'll have an argument why that's so, being very informed on how consoles use runtime decompression and the primary causes of bloated game size, right? As well as generational leaps. If you'd be so kind to enlighten us instead of handwaving.

I have a better idea. How about you explain it other than "It's a sequel and it's bigger!" since, like I already said, that doesn't add up. Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

 

[Zibniyat]

Poorfags gonna poorfag. OH NO MY POOR 150 GB OF STORAGE SPACE.

Lmao, i played the first game installed on a 4 TB HDD, so not an SSD just to emphasise, on a system that at the time was 5 or more years old, and the game ran smoothly almost all the time. At the highest settings. With to me acceptable loading times. HDDs are still being produced, are they not?

 

[Zibniyat]

Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

Ah, look at you, making extreme demands for an argument. I was gona say Jedi Academy came on 2 CDs back in the day, a sequel to Jedi Outcast which came on 1 CD, which wile not "triple the size" still was quite a lot at "double the size", considering the same engine.

But then for some reason you also want it to be a "modern sequel", because as we all supposedly ought to know modern games must meet random storage space requirements mentioned by strangers on the internet, otherwise those are not reasonable requirements!

How about this - your whole input here is worthless and not even worthy of being responded to.​

 

[ferratilis]

This will be an open world game that also has linear sections, unlike Fallen Order which had self-contained areas, that's why the size is so big. They said you'll visit Coruscant, but it will be a linear section. And there are several other linear sections taht were not announced yet. Combined with open world regions, it's easy to imagine why it would take up so much space. I'm more interested in how much vram this game is going to eat up, since that has been a trend lately, 8GB might not be enough.

 

[JDR13]

Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

Ah, look at you, making extreme demands for an argument. I was gona say Jedi Academy came on 2 CDs back in the day, a sequel to Jedi Outcast which came on 1 CD, which wile not "triple the size" still was quite a lot at "double the size", considering the same engine.

But then for some reason you also want it to be a "modern sequel", because as we all supposedly ought to know modern games must meet random storage space requirements mentioned by strangers on the internet, otherwise those are not reasonable requirements!

How about this - your whole input here is worthless and not even worthy of being responded to.​

What's wrong snowflake? You're so butthurt over a button rating that you're trying to troll now?

There's nothing extreme about what I asked unless you're recognizing that going from 55GB to 155GB is extreme.

 

[430am]

Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

The reason it didn't switch engine is because UE4 is still industry standard and switching to UE5 isn't viable - it's not ready yet and just put its foot out of the door. It wasn't ready when they started development on this. The real change here, if you bothered to look at what you're talking about at all, is that it's a generational leap. The first game had to also run on PS4 and Xbone (consoles from 2012) and conform with their capabilities. This is the primary factor for the upgrade here, not the engine change. UE4 even supports mobile phones, and mobile games definitely don't have file sizes of 43GB so your claim about the engine doesn't come into play at all. It's just a display of complete ignorance on your part about how games are developed, how platforms work and how compression and optimization is used.

That aside, we're talking about a four year difference here. Here's your examples, since apparently you're living in a cave.

God of War (40 GB) - God of War: Ragnarok (107 GB) 4 years
Vermintide 1 (30 GB) - Vermintide 2 (105 GB) 4 years
AC Odyssey (46+ GB) - AC Valhalla (160 GB) ~2 years
COD: WWII (90GB) - COD: Black Ops Cold War (175 GB) 3 years

Once again, the new game will most likely have more audio to work with, more textures, more meshes and larger map sizes than a 2012 console would have been able to handle. And all of this at a higher fidelity.

 

[JDR13]

Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

The reason it didn't switch engine is because UE4 is still industry standard and switching to UE5 isn't viable - it's not ready yet and just put its foot out of the door. It wasn't ready when they started development on this. The real change here, if you bothered to look at what you're talking about at all, is that it's a generational leap. The first game had to also run on PS4 and Xbone (consoles from 2012) and conform with their capabilities. This is the primary factor for the upgrade here, not the engine change. UE4 even supports mobile phones, and mobile games definitely don't have file sizes of 43GB so your claim about the engine doesn't come into play at all. It's just a display of complete ignorance on your part about how games are developed, how platforms work and how compression and optimization is used.

That aside, we're talking about a four year difference here. Here's your examples, since apparently you're living in a cave.

God of War (40 GB) - God of War: Ragnarok (107 GB) 4 years
Vermintide 1 (30 GB) - Vermintide 2 (105 GB) 4 years
AC Odyssey (46+ GB) - AC Valhalla (160 GB) ~2 years
COD: WWII (90GB) - COD: Black Ops Cold War (175 GB) 3 years

Once again, the new game will most likely have more audio to work with, more textures, more meshes and larger map sizes than a 2012 console would have been able to handle. And all of this at a higher fidelity.

Nice effort, but none of those are actually 3 times the size of the previous game. Maybe GoW to GoW: Ragnarok on Playstation, but I'm talking about PC, and GoW is 70GB on PC while Ragnarok has yet to be released.

AC Odyssey is 108 GB. I know this because I currently have it installed.
Vermintide is 49.41 GB and Vermintide II is 93.7 GB to install. I have both games on Steam and just checked how much actual space to install them.
COD: BOCW isn't a sequel to WWII and doesn't use the same engine. Nevermind that it's not even double the size much less triple.

As for the rest of what you said, Jedi Survivor not being on the last gen consoles might actually be a good explanation. It sure makes more sense than "It's a sequel and has MOAR!" Thing is, DemonKing already pointed out that fact 8 posts ago.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Name one other time where a modern sequel released this soon after the first game, and using the same engine, was triple the size of its predecessor. I'll be waiting.

Ah, look at you, making extreme demands for an argument. I was gona say Jedi Academy came on 2 CDs back in the day, a sequel to Jedi Outcast which came on 1 CD, which wile not "triple the size" still was quite a lot at "double the size", considering the same engine.

But then for some reason you also want it to be a "modern sequel", because as we all supposedly ought to know modern games must meet random storage space requirements mentioned by strangers on the internet, otherwise those are not reasonable requirements!

How about this - your whole input here is worthless and not even worthy of being responded to.​

What's wrong snowflake? You're so butthurt over a button rating that you're trying to troll now?

There's nothing extreme about what I asked unless you're recognizing that going from 55GB to 155GB is extreme.

Nigga it's a single digit and a 1 at that.

 

[JDR13]

Nigga it's a single digit and a 1 at that.

Nigga please. Whatch you mean by uno my brother? Splain yo self. I can dig it.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Nigga it's a single digit and a 1 at that.

Nigga please. Whatch you mean by uno my brother? Splain yo self. I can dig it.

155 GB
55 GB.
Difference is just 1 bro.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Seriously though, Middle earth assassins creed went from 60 GB to 100 something by the sequel. And they were both open world

 

[Zibniyat]

What's wrong snowflake? You're so butthurt over a button rating that you're trying to troll now?

Whoever said anything about button ratings, idiot?

There's nothing extreme about what I asked unless you're recognizing that going from 55GB to 155GB is extreme.

It is not extreme. You did not "recognise" it as such, you simply decided to call it that way and expect others to indulge you as if it is a given that you are correct. You are not.

 

[430am]

AC Odyssey is 108 GB. I know this because I currently have it installed.
Vermintide is 49.41 GB and Vermintide II is 93.7 GB to install. I have both games on Steam and just checked how much actual space to install them.
COD: BOCW isn't a sequel to WWII and doesn't use the same engine. Nevermind that it's not even double the size much less triple.

Because you're checking the file sizes today with all the DLC and cosmetic bells and whistles included as opposed to what it says on the product tin in the system requirements info. If you want an actual comparison without trying to weasel out, compare both on release or by system requirements, not first game with 15 DLC and 666 skins included to second game release.
For COD, obviously it's not a sequel, but it's the next mainstream game in line, so same logic applies.

Thing is, DemonKing already pointed out that fact 8 posts ago.

So? I did mention generations and he agreed with my post. Once again it's on you since you didn't even look at the game we're talking about before you submitted your incredibly informed one word quality post.

 

[JDR13]

Whoever said anything about button ratings, idiot?

You didn't need to. It was obvious my butthurt little friend.

It is not extreme. You did not "recognise" it as such, you simply decided to call it that way and expect others to indulge you as if it is a given that you are correct. You are not.

Is English your native language? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.