Is quibbling over FPS REALLY that important?

Really? Always assumed you were at 144fps. I hate going below a 100.

From the time i started gaming in the 16 bit days all the way til about 2015/2016 I never really noticed FPS. I think the majority of people that game are in the same boat - there's always atleast one person commenting "I think it runs fine" whenever a factually poor performing game is brought up.

At some point things changed for me. I started noticing FPS issues in games. I was shocked at how bad certain games ran when I would revisit them. Eventually I got a PC so I could replay some games at higher FPS (and higher settings) and now I try to play at 60fps whenever I can.

People waste too much time whining about this crap, instead of demanding better games. I don't care what the fps is if it sucks, like most modern games.

I think most people given a side-by-side comparison playing the same game at 30 vs 60 would agree that 60 is waaaay better.

I just did this with R&C by accident on PS5 before the patch finished. Noticed immediately it felt sluggish and looked choppy.

It's night and day, as other have said. 30fps should not be considered acceptable by today's standards especially since we finally have consoles with real graphics horsepower.

And yeah I'd prefer 100+ Hz. Much experience had driven me to this conclusion.

Well that's just the majority of the AAA space designing games based on marketing decisions. That's not going to change while big corps are spending a metric whack ton of cash on games. I dunno who keeps buying that stuff, it's not me.

60fps is almost a gimme at this point on modern consoles.

diff between 60-120 doesn't give me pause, but I can DEFINITELY notice 30 vs 60.

I can tell a big difference between 60 and 120 or 144, but It's not something I aim for, a nice stable 60 or 72 is perfectly fine for me.

back in the 360/PS3 era I could accept 30, but not any more really, especially not first person games. It's not a latency issue, it's how 30fps comes across on-screen. These days I can actually see the duplicate frames, it creates an on-screen judder effect which is pretty horrendous. I play PC and console games and if a console game can't do 60fps as a minimum, I won't play it.

Higher FPS is not important then why did Sony/MS put it on the box?

The only difference is the butthurt because PC can actually reach that target while consoles don't.

Well, this thread went off the rails pretty quickly....

What you're seeing is the fact that a CRT would only flash an image on screen for a few milliseconds per frame, while LCD has that image on screen for the entire duration of the frame. When you see motion IRL, it's not freezing in time and space for 16ms before instantaneously appearing at the next location, so because of this, when your brain sees an LCD image, it sees it as blur.

If you have a monitor that can do over 120fps, check this out. This will show you the difference between the UFO being drawn normally across the screen, showing all the blur you get from a normal LCD image, and near the bottom you'll see what that same image looks like with black frame insertion, simulating some of the effects CRT had on perceivable motion blur.

Looking at 5 UFOs which shows a control of about 30 frames per second, you can see just how blurry the top image is, you cannot make out any detail of the moving object, as you move down the list, you'll see each one has more black frames inserted in between every frame of the image, as you can see from this the shorter the image itself is displayed on screen (the more black frames inserted) the clearer the image becomes moving at 30fps. This is the difference between CRT gaming, when 30fps in 3D gaming began, and 30fps on LCD today. What you'll notice is 30fps on CRT has less motion blur than 60fps on an LCD. That is why many retro gamers still use CRT today, and even a number of modern competitive gamers will use 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 CRTs today.

https://www.testufo.com/blackframes