That explains it, I wonder what it dipped to on PS2. 

What's wrong with solid 60 fps? It's not like our eyes can even comprehend more that anyways...

30 is more than playable for me. 60 obviously feels better, but I would rather have a better looking game at 30.
I've played games which drop below 30, its not unplayable but its irritating having to adapt to it.

Sucks for people back then. I would hate fighting the giant bosses with under 20 fps. 

Sme way I feel about it. i would much rather have higher graphics than 60 fps. 

Depends on the game. Some games are quite smooth at 40 and some Ubi games stutter at 60.

I prefer 60 fps on Racing and Fighting games cause every frame matters in those types of games as well as response time and 60 fps for me looks generally more smoother than 30 does... With that being said, not every game needs 60 fps to look great but for me, racing games and fighting games is a must for 60 fps and I am sure if most people played a game in 30 fps and then 60 fps, they can tell the difference. Here are some examples

http://30vs60.com/dirt3.php

I prefer 60 FPS, but a lot of games don't need the higher framerate. If the developer isn't making superfast sprites flying by the screen, the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is utterly inconsequential.

@bold- for puzzle games, yes. For shooters you need AT LEAST 720 FPS and for fighting games 1800 fps is a must. I mean do you know how high the input lag is when playing a fighting game in 1200 FPS? I'm literally sitting there waiting for the next frame to appear so that i can continue my combo!

To me it varies base don game experience. Twitch based games do need 60 frames, but menu based strategy games are fine at 30. The important aspect is does not effect game play.