Yes, I hadn’t thought about that, but could be really nice and lead to a lot more naturalistic level design. My brain is way to good at spotting the peculiar kinds of junction and so on that devs use to limit polys seen.
94GB is bad, but Gears of War 4 wanted 136GB… And I’m like, mate, you’re a linear single-player/co-op-oriented shooter with good but not mind-blowing graphics, how the fuck do you need 136GB? Gears 5 “only” needed like 80GB. I remember when Doom 2016 needed 75GB I was like “Holy shit that insane”.
Compressed vs. uncompressed is a big part of it, as is open-world vs level-based. If you have a good asset streaming algorithm, and a generally well-built engine, and so on, you can use compressed assets and have a much, much smaller install size, at the cost of a long initial loading time (which TW3 has, in my experience), and potentially long loading times if you fast-travel or the like, but the streaming in an open-world game came mean you rarely see any loading, if you’re riding or driving around most of the time.
XCOM2 both has a pretty awful engine (you may recall when XCOM2 launched that the engine was an incredible screaming trash-fire which brought powerful machines to their knees, and took a while to get get working okay), and has a design which means that its constantly loading two entirely different sets of assets (the world/your ship, and actual levels), so potentially has hideous loading times (and indeed it did have some bad ones, and some weird problems which you could work around with some kind of trick I forget), and thus needs uncompressed assets to try and counterbalance these issues. If it had a better-designed, better-functioning engine, it shouldn’t need them.
Doom 2016 has a very good engine, but uses extremely large high-quality assets, and also wants minimal loading times, so is a similar size. I haven’t played Gears 4 yet (I did install it because I have to see), but I bet it seems like it has very loading times, and will have very high-res assets.