I can tell the difference but with that been said 60FPS is overrated for the most part IMO ...

That's funny because the game still runs at 60 fps during 2-player splitscreen.

I can tell the difference.
It should be mentioned that not all computers can do 60 fps easily. My laptop has a hard time with 60 fps but my brother's rig can do 60 fps easy.

Now with that mentioned, give http://www.30vs60fps.com/ a try to see the difference.

So, only about 2/3 of people can...on this site anyway. 

I was so used to old games lagging, it is super obvious to me. When you're actually playing a game at 60fps, it's even more obvious, versus watching a video.

Ooooh yeah. I can see the difference.
A high frame rate is pretty important to me, but it does depend on the game. I want an action game to run smooth, but I'm hardly going to mind if Skullgirls or something only runs at 30.
I really hope what they've done in The Division catches on in console games. You'll never get people to agree on whether graphics or performance is more important, so why not just let them choose for themselves?

This. Its the responsiveness that enhances the gameplay. The animations do look better aswell because of it ofc.

I don't know about some youtube video, but i can clearly see the difference in the image in a game that is rendered in front of me.

In average the brain can't really tell the differences above 60fps. 30fps is alot easier. Of course, some might not be able to or are just beeing stubburn.

Didnt mean to double post. Apologies.

Anyways this video and poll based on it are not gonna give accurate results. This video is very fishy. When playing a game its clear as day.

In gaming, sure.

I think you've got that backwards and i hope you don't mean travel further as in the time for the image to reach your eyes :) That would be 0.01 micro seconds for 12 feet. It will be a while before we can render 75 million fps for that to become relevant!

What does make a difference is the speed at which objects travel through your visual field. In a small you tube window on a 15.4" laptop the difference is far less obvious than on a big tv. The steps objects take through your visual field are smaller, thus less noticeable that the bits in between are skipped.

In real life your eyes only have a very small sharp fov, 1.2 degrees. You're always scanning the scene and track objects with your eyes, the rods and cones collect the light, detect the edges and pass along that info to your brain. With video running at 30 fps, objects step through the screen which doesn't play nice with your eyes tracking the object. Your eyes don't step along to collect the light, they move smoothly. The higher the fps, the smaller the steps, the better your eyes can focus on and follow moving objects. The faster the object moves, the bigger the screen, the higher the fps needed to be able to still see that object in focus while following it with your eyes. Hence sometimes 240fps can still look better than 120fps.

Eye sight is pretty complicated with elements all working at different speeds. For example move your phone in front of you in the dark and it seems that the lighted screen becomes detached and lags behind. And then you have some situations where less frames per 'brain update' is actually better if those 60 fps only manage to smear things together. You see a big blur close to you when you look out the window in a moving car and at some distance your eyes can track the moving ground and it's in full focus. That distance is not fixed nor a smooth transition. At some distances you can catch glimpses of detail while mostly seeing a blurry image.

Anyway that's the easiest way to spot the difference, rotate the view or pan/scroll and it's obvious.

I think the right side is the 60fps one. Anyway, this is pretty noticiable in many games, especially Driving and Hack 'n Slash games. Tho when it comes to cinematic games I don't mind it being 30fps.