I mostly prefer 60 fps. It depends though. I'll take a game with rock solid 30 fps over a game with 60 fps on paper but with drops all the time. A 60 fps game with drops to 40 fps looks worse than a game that just stays at 30 fps all the time imo. So in the end, I think consistency is more important than the framecount.

That depends on the developers and what they are trying to achieve. Both approaches are understandable.

60 FPS > 30 FPS> That's the only truth I need!

Dunno about that theory, but...I like 60 fps, find 30 fps with motion blur acceptable, and anything less than that to be unplayable dogshit.

A steady framerate is far more important to me than a high framerate. Sure 60 fps is ideal, but I'd take a rock solid 30 fps over a choppy 60 fps every time.

I've never really thought about FPS when playing a game so wants it's a solid 30 i don't ever complain. But I noticed that 60 fps on youtube makes a huge diff compared to 30 fps. maybe it just stands out more when you're a foot away from the pc screen watching youtube

How can ANYONE prefer solid 30fps to solid 60fps? 60fps is objectively better.

The only time I preferred 30 is when I emulated Crash Team Racing on PC and got motion sick because of the increased frame rate and how dodgy the camera is in that game (only noticeable at a higher then intended frame rate.)

Higher the framerate the better.

Umm, actually it's the other way around, 30fps is more 'realistic' than 60 fps, where things bounce around at superhuman speeds. Ubisoft seems to agree, and they might actually know about these things. Perhaps the younger gaming generations are so used to the hyper speed action games, that they kind of forget what speed the real world functions at and what actually looks realistic.

I prefer a variable, choppy framerate in the low twenties...

Of course 60fps is better - there's really no substitute when you're playing a difficult game with a lot of action on screen. "Bayonetta 2" at 30fps, even a rock-solid 30fps, wouldn't compare favorably at all to the (mostly) dependable 60fps we've all enjoyed.

*As long as the dropped frames aren't persistent, or terribly noticeable/distracting, I'll take even a moderately stable 60fps over 30fps most any day of the week.

For movies, I prefer a player that will run discs in their native 24/48 fps.

I think if it's properly shown to people people see the difference. The problem is people look for a slide show effect with 30 fps. 30 fps isn't a slide show for anyone.

Here's my theory:

The issue is you aren't getting a smooth transition as things move leading to ghosting like effect around the edge of objects and a generally less solid appearance. You also aren't getting sufficient information, from some games, for your eyes to smoothly track fast moving objects.

If, for example, you're playing a 2D Sonic game at 30fps. Sonic stays still whilst the environment makes large jumps as it scrolls past. When your eyes are focused on Sonic it might not be too bad, but when your eyes attempt to focus on the environment, and track it, the large jumps make it hard for you to follow and can even make you nauseous.

I would suggest that people who think they don't see a diffrence would still find a game at 30 fps less easy to follow and more likely to make them nauseous, even if they're unaware that framerate is the issue.