no 32bit vs 64bit is solely what the processor can handle. a 64 bit can bring in 64 bits of information to process in one instant. compared to 32 on a 32bit processor. think of memory as a hard drive that can give information to the processor (and wherever else it needs to go) in orders of magnitude faster than a real hard drive.

then buy and add more memory to your computer :boggle: wait, another troll perhaps? i am not good at spotting them right away.

the crysis engine is pretty dated, note how i did not say crysis 2. or you could just use my sig for reference on what "high fidelity" should look like in this game, and actually did back in beta when the picture was taken.

go play crysis, then come back to this game and make an objective comparison of in game graphics. better yet, look at my sig. the advertising campaign pic is a trooper with max graphics settings from when they were enabled back in beta. and the other is what they look like now with "max" settings.

not the case. also if you are as avid a gamer as you claim, you should know that that isn't a finite definition. saying that since the machines they put together crashed, everyones would is a blanket falsehood. all the beta users that had the high settings before they took them out would also have to disagree, especially that they also had server stress testing even when high settings were still enabled, and the majority didn't have problems. it has been posted by those people in the previously maxxed threads. once again you are assuming that everyone would run the max settings even if their machine couldn't handle it and they knew that. just because the option is there. another blanket falsehood. i will say it one more time since you dodge it continuously. let me choose whether or not to limit my graphics, don't push something on me that i didn't choose to have just because you think i don't know what i am doing or am incapable of choosing for myself. some, not all. you can't seem to grasp that. my comments were directed at the general populous you seem to think exists. you know, the one that can't make a logical choice and therefore should have their options limited for them. no, like seriously.... do you honestly believe that forcing the public into something they don't want, without the public's input is a democratic process? a democratic process involves options and voting by the public. none of which happened. what did happen was bioware took out an option during beta that some people were having issue with, but not all, and never put it back in after assuring us in beta it would be. and now claiming that they never intended to have that option for anything other than their "cinematics" aka cutscenes. because not everyone could use it.... which is in no way what so ever democratic.

yes it is an assumption. saying bioware has the metrics does not substantiate your argument. as i have said before they do not know every system spec of every user of their product. nor will they attempt to. your metrics are at best an average, and at worse a baseline assumption of the lowest level hardware specs possible for this game to even run. the second option is the right one. because i will be damned if i should have to limit my graphics options so you and your crappy computer can have the false pretense of running at the highest level graphics. option 1 i would have no remorse for someone who is too idiotic to turn down their graphics if their machine can't handle it. no it was not a damned if you do damned if you don't. people have good computers, great computers, or crappy computers. people with good computers run on medium settings. and people with great computers get their eye candy max settings. while people who have crappy computers get their low settings. that is how the world works. this isn't preschool where everyone is a special sparkle pony. if you can't afford the highest level computer hardware, know your place and play at a lower setting and like it. limiting everyone because not everyone can have the best thing is similar to communism. last i checked we weren't a communist society. do YOU understand yet?

ok, so now you are assuming that i, knowing full well that the high rez textures have a possibility of crashing my computer (hypothetically) that i would come to the forums and ***** about that? do you see when i will win the lottery? what are my lucky numbers?! the ques were artificial and as such a poor argument to try and use. if the que times were legitimate and people were crashing to desktop due to graphics issues, and had not the common sense to lower the fing graphics till it didn't crash anymore, i would have no sympathy for them. you keep going to this black and white world where people would run the game on max settings even in their machine couldn't handle it and complain till bioware somehow made their machines able to handle it. instead of doing, i dunno, TURNING DOWN THE FING TEXTURES BECAUSE YOU\YOUR (as in, NOT MY) COMPUTER CAN'T HANDLE IT. don't ruin my experience with a game because you are too poor/ have circumstances which affect your ability to afford a good computer. that is similar to communism in many respects

who's performance? not mine, yours maybe? how is that my problem? i should not have to suffer low resolution textures just because you or a portion of the playerbase can't handle them. like i have said before, you can always turn down graphics from the highest resolution if needed. you can't do the reverse if it's not made available.

and like i said, if i want to have my extremely high end machine running the highest level graphics the game has all the time, and crashing to desktop in the fleet. THAT IS MY CHOICE. no one but me should be making MY choice for me. and i can guarantee my machine can run this game on their max setting and never crash, i am willing to bet at minimum 100 USD on that. and no, your suggestion is a compromise to something that should have no compromise. it should be available for everyone regardless of if their machine can run it. let the use figure out if it works, they can scale it back down otherwise. unless you have some ridiculous belief that is they enabled the max graphic settings that everyone on every machine everywhere would be forced into running that high a level. my ego has nothing to do with bioware telling me my machine can't do something i know full well it can. you say they have the metrics, they don't have the metrics of every single computer every single customer that bought their game has. they are just pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is just wrong, if just for the simple fact that you can turn down settings if they are too much for your machine. it is impossible to bring graphics higher than what they limit you because a portion of the player base has poorly built computers

here's an option stop trying to tell me how to run the game on my machine. let me choose to crash constantly while having the highest resolution textures possible. don't assume you know my computer and what its capable of because i guarantee you will be mistaken. throughout the entirety of these threads you have repeated the same thing, that they were right in forcing me to run the game how they believe i should. limiting my option i know for a fact my machine can handle. i built my machine, and i know it's limits. you or bioware telling me it would crash on my computer is a complete folly and only shows your ignorance in the matter.

right now, on my server at least, if you have underworld trading, you will be making lots more money than slicing (even pre nerf) could make. now this will probably change here soon now that people are dropping slicing for ut, but we will see.

if a person wishes to take slicing, and also want to make stuff, they are at a disadvantage. since their crafting profession will require items that can only be achieved through the mission running crew skills. as well as the open world gathering skill. taking slicing removes one of those two primary ways for crafters to craft their items. the original idea was that the money gained from slicing would offset this and also increase activity on the auction house because these people would need to buy mats from others using money from slicing. people however, saw slicing as a way to get an advantageous amount of money in the game, and the people who didn't take it, did not like that. so much complaining was done and it was nerfed. but the complainers didn't fully comprehend the negative impact slicing had on crafting professions. and how that extra money wasn't just sitting in the bank, it was being used.

i always argued that slicing needed to be where its at because for those of us who actually took a profession and slicing, we gimped ourselves out of the common material or the rare material only found in the mission running (ut/inve). and had to spend more than the normal person to compete. not only spend more, but we were at the complete whim of the auction house and it's market. nerfing slicing is a heavy handed move without actually looking at all factors involved, now all we can hope for is a buff later on, or something more creative. for example, make a mission in slicing where your companion raids a safe that happens to have a amount of rare underworld metals (or some other resource needed) as well as a fraction of the normal credit reward.

actually a proper analogy is as follows: That's like that store that has 500 basketballs and 400 people are lined up at a front door that can only let in 50 people at a time to get them, and can hold a maximum of 100 people. They give 50 basketballs to the first 50 people, and as those 50 stay and play with their basketballs, they let in the next 50. Then they tell everyone to go back home until tomorrow when they will have more room for people to play with their basketballs in the store, when we can clearly see the stack of 493 basketballs.