The quicker the gaming industry gets out of trying to make things more 'cinematic' the better. An interactive medium trying to ape a non-interactive medium is just asinine.

48 is objectively better than 30, 60 is objectively better than 48, and so on. Run as high as you can possibly go consistently on your hardware.

Frame timing is far more important for a 'smooth' experience than frame rate in the long run anyway.

Simple math: 60 > 30. Motion blur is cancer, and makes me sick.

Movies are shot at 24 frames per second, and many people have gotten used to the feel of it - that's what they think of when they think "cinematic".

Video, often shot at 60 framers per second, was often the domain of TV shows - soap operas in particular - and thus smooth motion like that has developed a negative connotation - the "soap operate effect" for example.

24 fps or 30 fps is not any more "real" since movies aren't real, and real life has an infinite frame rate. If you like it, that's fine. 60 fps feels more responsive, which is why most PC gamers target it.

What others target for singleplayer story games is smoothness. Easy if you have a G-Sync or FreeSync monitor, not as easy without. In some cases, and depending on your hardware, a locked 30 fps with very consistent frame times may look and feel much smoother than 60 fps with variable frame times.

Lol, looks like someone is taking Film History & Analysis 101 this semester.

If 30 FPS is more real than 60 FPS, then 15 FPS must be even better and so on. Who doesn't want extra milliseconds added to all response times because the screen didn't refresh or that console pleb experience on a masterrace PC?

Higher is better but if I have to choose between 30 fps with full graphics settings or 60 fps on medium, I take the former.
30 is enough for me.

20 FPS is king! CauseI'm used to it! :)

wtf is 60 fps ?? a loading screen??

get a screen with 144/240 fps
http://evedumpster.com/category/wqhd-144fps-videos/
i won't even vote

30 fps for that cinematic feel (and when your hardware is not good enough / overheat to push for 60+ fps).
It's a bit awkward to play at 60 fps when you're used to 30 fps on certain games. But the smoothness sure feels nice.
I hope freesync 2 have wider range. Right now, there are only a few that support 30 fps (most starts from 48) and they're only TN panel.

Watching the 30 fps gameplay hurts my eyes. I can deal with it in games like Total War series or stuff from Paradox but for my action games I need 60+, ideally 100+. :)

All you guys that prefer 100+, you do realize that you'll need a higher hz monitor to actually see the difference, yes?

I think that my limit is about 50FPS.....when is game running about 30-40 FPS or bellow, i can see, that is not smoothy and it ruins my experience.
Would prefer higher, but my RX480 and FX8300 cant run higher (monitor is Freesync 75 Hz)

This is one of those things where I genuinely don't understand the reasoning behind the argument.
You've said it's "movie like" or whatever, but that argument holds no water because:

1) We're talking about games, not movies. If you said you don't prefer the higher framerate movies, I'd get you. I also feel a bit weird watching the higher framerate movies, though overall it's better once you get used to it, since you get a more smooth experience. But the point is still valid and understandable because it makes a real change both ways.

2) Movies are in 24fps... Why are you even mentioning 30fps if it has literally nothing to do with the actual argument?

But that's the only one idea that you've brought forward as a reason and it's as nonsensical as saying "I prefer a £10 bill to a £20 bill because it's worth £5. The numbers and everything around it is nonsensical.
The reason why people care for higher framerates is because the controls are more precise, the visuals are smoother and you get a better reaction from the game.

I personally didn't get the argument until I actually physically saw it myself. Go to Payday 2 and go to the options. In there you have the frame limiter. In the main menu, there's burning cash falling down with some effects. Going from 30 to 60 makes a massive difference. Not seeing it requires either some visual impairment or just plain ignorance at what's in front of you. It's just flat out smoother. A scientifically measurable thing. After that, play the game with unlimited frames (make sure you can actually reach 60+fps) and play it. Then switch over to 30fps (or 24 if you want the movie like experience you claimed to want) and play it that way. The controls will be delayed more because there's a physical difference there. Time won't move as fast in a simulation where time doesn't move as fast. It's as simple as that.

Try my method, if you're curious. But personally, your argument makes little sense to me and it's based on facts that don't exist.

For me 60 FPS is more than enough. 30 FPS is OK for some titles but not enough to enjoy a smooth playing experience for most titles. For the games unable to get a steady 60 FPS at 4K resolution I prefer to switch to 1080p for a smoother experience. On a bigger screen and from a distance you usually can hardly tell the difference in resolution but the smoothness is visible from any reasonable distance.

I'm way used to ignoring the stuttering that I don't care about the FPS of the game. Sure, I can detect the difference, but it doesn't bother me at all.

60+ will always be superior. It's one of the reasons I sold my PS4, not even their exclusives could make me keep the console.

I can't choose, my pc is trash.
So 20 fps is great.

here

Smooth 60 FPS Gloriuos PC Master Race. Watch porn 60 Fps, you will feel the difference ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

900 fps (at Farcry1 btw).

For most games I play I can't tell a difference, and I prefer the games run smoothly without lag or my PC laboring - so 30fps really doesn't bother me.

of。course60 in my view 30fps is not enough fluent for me