But, aren't dimensions just a "measurement"  All existing at the same time?  We're just experiencing one segment at a time with our limited perception.  It's already infinite frames per second!  Going backwards and forwards!

Lol, but, seriously (kinda was being serious already) the human eye cannot see more than 72 frames per second.  So, those extra 12 frames per second you'd see in moving from 60-120 might be a big deal?  But, you wont be able to detect each frame in 120.

So, I say why not one day, move to 120?  There would be no reason to move past that as 120 is past what the human eye can see, but, why not get the maximum?

You are the one who made the claim.The questions i have been asking was to get some context as to what you mean.

"1080p @ 60FPS has been standard on your average PC for years now"

Otherwise you have no proof to back up your claim. Doing a quick check on steam stats..which is really the only thing we have to go on and its not completely accurate..you will see that the average/standard gamer's PC is using onboard integrated graphics. How on earth do you achieve 1080p @ 60FPS for the majority of games with that hardware? I'm sorry but the reason why i already conclude im the victor on this topic is because its already something thats more or less known. Its not like we breaking new ground with this topic.

Then you go to take into consideration that most pc gamers are only playing MMO's, MOBA's and other free to play games...a large majority of which simply want to play the game at playable levels. Those type of gamers are not initially investing in decent gaming hardware to play games like Crysis 3, Metro etc.

Maybe if you had answered the questions i asked i could get a proper understanding as to what you meant...maybe your definition of a standard pc is different from mine or something like that, maybe you only taking into consideration certain games etc. You havent answered any of my questions and you havent provided any proof either. I'm not sure what i did wrong here that you no longer wish to debate.

Honestly, those games (even DiRT) are so slow paced I don't see a difference in the MP4's. In games as fast paced as, say, Quake, you will most definitely need 60+ fps. Heck, Quake 3/Live practically requires 120 fps, though that's not something most monitors will go up to anyways.

Knew from the title of the thread that this involved Blackb0nd. He is a troll.

Obviously 1080p 60FPS was the standard for PC games last gen, because the most played PC games are far less demanding than the best looking games.
And even for demanding games 1080p 60FPS was achieveable for the majority, but only if they downgraded all other settings to low or medium levels. A moot point really and hardly comparable to consoles.

20FPS is more than enough for me, I always prefer higher resolution and texture quality over framerate.

You just won't let it go will you? First thing to consider about Steam is not every user on Steam is a PC gamer. A fair amount of users probably only log on once in a while and play one game like DOTA and call it a day. But if you look at Steam's own survey, http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/. A large amount of people are running computers more than capable to run games in full HD and 60 fps, you can safely call that a standard. Where the heck did you get, "average/standard gamer's PC is using onboard integrated graphics" from? Even with all things considered that is completely wrong. But adding in "average PC gamer into it" is even more wrong, what kind of self-proclaimed PC gamer would run a rig with an Intel 4000 for gaming, nevermind that being a standard. Besides the majority of manufacturers have been targeting full HD and good performance in all but their lowest and cheapest tiers, because that's the standard and has been the standard for PC gaming in the last couple of years. It wouldn't be a standard  if people didn't make it so, the demand that exists today wouldn't happen if it wasn't a standard, the term that "PC ports look better than console versions" would pretty much have close to no substance if it wasn't anywhere close to the standard. Not to mention, I'm not saying something new or unqiue here, posters right here in this thread have called 1080p and 60 fps a standard for PC gaming.

But I think I found the problem, and that is your definition of a PC gamer. If we go by your definition then yeah there is a good chance you might be correct, but let's back up here. Would you consider someone who just plays League of Legends or Runescape on their computer a PC gamer? I think you'd be hard pressed to try to push that definition, I assumed you wouldn't think to lump people who play Candy Crush on their computers with people that are playing Skyrim on Ultra settings in the same catergory but it looks like I thought wrong. But you said it yourself "Those type of gamers are not initially investing in decent gaming hardware to play games like Crysis 3, Metro etc." so why even bother bringing them up if you're implying they're a seperate catergory to begin with?

I'm sorry but why did you even jump into this arguement and try to call me out if you were confused in the first place? If you were more clear in the beginning you could've saved yourself the trouble, instead you try to claim victory on what exactly?

Yes, they fixed the framerate on the HD collection. Killzone HD too, it runs at 60fps on PS3 while the original dipped to 20fps.

Never cared about FPS/resolution. I could play a game at 20, hell even below, and be fine with it :p

Seriously this guy? Just let him continue living in his own disillusion fantasy where if you disagree with him you are a social reject.