I was reading this thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=135557&page=4  and it occurred to me that, while it seems like many people care a lot about FPS, I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Maybe if I really look into it I'll notice a very slight difference, but that's it.

It may be because I'm both shortsighted (wearing lenses but perhaps still not perfect sight) and colorblind, dunno, but for me it's just the same.

I've heard that humans can't notice a difference above 30FPS but it seems that many do notice it clearly, so it must depend on the person.

Of course, if a 60FPS game occassionally dips to 45FPS it's going to be better for me than if a 30FPS game drops to 15, where I do very clearly notice it. But otherwise I see no advantage. So I prefer a game have 30FPS and focus more on other graphical aspects.

I found these comparisons online (if anyone knows how to embed I would appreciate it):

http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/smbcompare.mov

http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/segalogo.mov

So how about you, can you tell the difference? Do you prefer games at 60FPS with, for example, lower textures? What's your priority?

No diff for me

The human eye can "see" hundreds of frames per second, and those videos are much more fluid in their first part than in the second. This debate makes me remember one day at the university, when our teacher of signal proccesing tried to explain the Nyquist rate and the Shannon theorem. ¿Can you feel the difference between 8000 Hz (POTS) vs 16000 Hz (VOIP) sound? ¿And between 22050 Hz and 44100 Hz sound? Super audio CD uses 2822400 Hz, so someone thinks there is a market for those higher than what most people think its neccesary frecuencies.

In videogames something similar happens, some people believe 30 fps are more than needed, but it deppends on the variability of the image. If you have much information, when the scene changes fast, you need more frames to have a fluid sensation, if you have less movement, you need less frames. Try to play a strategy game at 15 fps, some games are playable. Try the same with a shooter or a driving game, you need much more frames to make it playable.

I didn't click the video, but it is noticeable sometimes. Also if frame rates drop, it can get very annoying at 30FPS becoming 20FPS.

Personally I want to know the benefit of 60FPS vs 120FPS.

Ya I think driving games at 30FPS can show blur, if I am not mistaken, and typically are the best examples of the argument. I think another benefit is 3D gaming, but I have no idea about that, since 3DS is the only 3D gaming I do. 

The human eye is not a machine it does not see in Frames per second, and in terms of looking at a monitor it struggles to perceive any differnce over 100fps.

Not exactly your videos but this helps:

At first I was going to say Youtube doesn't show 60FPS only 30FPS, but I noticed it slows down, and shows how different it can be. 

That's why I put "see". There are studies that show that most humans can feel a difference in one frame in a 200 fps video, and some in a 500 fps video, so the human eye can feel much more than 30.

I don't think this is a good indicator. As you said, YT only does 30fps. And of course you can see a difference slowing it down, but if you slow down a 1000 vs 900fps video enough you'll also see a difference, it doesn't mean you can see it at normal speed.

Also, as some user has said, even when pausing the image the 30fps image is blurry, so I'm not sure it's a proper test (might it be normal? not an expert on this).

Not saying there isn't a difference to most people, just that I don't think this is a proper proof.