Its just a PR guy...wtf does he know? :)

If the dev said this, then maybe there would be a reason for concern.

I feel fine with my money in the pocket, dear PR manager...

He's right, though. The human eye sees 24 frames per second as fluid. He never (as far as I can tell) says that the human eye can't observe higher, just that it's fluid at 24 frames per second. And it is.

24 frames per second was long ago decided to be the best compromise betweeen the quality of the movie and film usage.

This PR manager says that they decided that 24 frames per second was a good bottom for their frame per second. Ultimately, this choice is similar in several ways.

It's largely using the same logic. You can obviously question their decision, but I'm rather opposed to just ridiculing the PR manager and claiming he did no research.

24 fps looked pretty choppy to me when I benchmarked F.E.A.R.

What would life be like if our eyes saw things at 5 fps?

sry but I've seen some movies where 24 FPS were certainly not enough.

For games, 24 FPS is already pretty low. Personally anything below 28 FPS looks hardly fluid to me and yes these 4 frames can make a huge difference.

I think 30 frames is tolerable for most things, but not realistic racers. However there is a noticable difference between 24FPS vs 60FPS. 

I agree that we should aim at 60 FPS. However, frames per second is a compromise. To achieve 60FPS instead of 30, you'll have to sacrifice graphical quality, scale, amount of objects on screen, etc. Sometimes, sacrificing the framerate for a better game in other regards is the right thing to do.

Ah, yes. I'm not certain about this, so this exlanation might be wrong, but I'm not quite sure.

Comfortable framerate comes from what you're used to. When certain companies started having their DVDs release at 60 frames per second, plenty of people complained that it felt off to them. That was because they were used to 24fps - they'd lived with that their whole life.

It's the same with games. You get used to one framerate, and when it's lower, it looks off to you. I personaly experienced this quite heftily myself. For the first few years I played HD games, I played them all on my PC, and got around 60fps or higher on all the games I played. I played my Wii, and plenty of its games were 30fps, but they were so much less graphically advanced that they fell into a different category.

So, when I got a Ps3, and all the games ran at 30fps, that felt incredibly choppy to me. I was used to 60fps, and as such 30fps was virtully unplayable to me. Eventually, though, I got used to it.

I suspect it's largely the same thing going on here.  The people working at King Arthur II's are used to it being 24fps, and therefore find that perfectly fluid. While plenty of other people have never played games as sub-30 FPS, and thus ind 24fps virtually unplayable.

He's right about 24fps being the bare minimum, but as we're used to higher, it's not comfortable.

Aren't fighting games even for consoles always 60FPS or use Motion Blur? Not really into fighters, and because of that I most likely don't notice.