30 vs 60 fps - can you really see the difference?

[SvennoJ]

This myth that 60fps always has better response time is just that, a myth. Input lag hasn't been tied to frame rate for a long time, although maybe it still is in some badly coded games. (And exceptions like street fighter where timing is still frame based) I can play certain sections of games with my eyes closes at 0 fps without missing a beat. A lot of fast action games come down to muscle memory. The extra fps aren't needed to stay 'synchronized' or to anticipate when to react.

Of course all things being unequal in pc gaming, biggest monitor, highest resolution, highest frame rate, lowest ping, least distracting effects, all give you an advantage in a competitive shooter.
For racing, where you're relying on muscle memory 99% of the time, bigger fov and higher res are more important than 60 fps to stick to the optimal driving line.
For platform games, the faster it scrolls the worse the image gets. You don't need the extra fps to react in time, you need it to be able to track objects without them turning into a side stepping blur. Yet after you learn the timing you hardly need to look anymore.

Sure 60 fps is a safer bet than 30 fps for low input lag, unless it comes at a detriment of resolution, distracting shimmering or worse lighting that make things harder to see. For once I would like to see a comparison between locked 30fps and locked 60fps running close to max at both frame rates. What do you need to sacrifice to double the fps.