Yea, no. 48 FPS, or 60 FPS, looks horrible in film. It makes a film go from seeming epic, to looking like a TV show. Really, that's why I prefer 30 FPS for games that are aiming for realism. 60 FPS just makes it look like a game. Now, this is fine for cartoony games and can help with the perception of speed in racing games, but IMO it hurts realism. ~40 FPS seems to be a nice compromise, though. It still feels buttery smooth, but the illusion of realism isn't destroyed. At least, that's what I gathered from playing Infamous:SS.

The only real downfall of 24 FPS is that if the camera moves too fast, you can get an image that ghosts/blurs. I think filming digital has helped this some, but maybe upping it to 30 FPS would help more.

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  To A LOT (I'd even say the vast majority) of people it looks more realistic.  Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.  So, yea, you can definitely prefer higher framerates for games if that's what you like, but you can not tell me that that actually looks like real life.

YMMD! Are you for real?

....

NES and SNES games ran at 60FPS most of the time, though PAL versions were usually at 50HZ. Although NES and SNES games did experience slow-down sometimes which, was a hardware limitation. When the 5th generation came out, a lot of 3D games had bad frameraes. Ocarina of Time is infamous for having a bad framerate. And that was because of hardware limitations. Although there are a few games from that generation that were 3D and 60fps, F-Zero X is a good example.  And when the 6th generation came out, games like Devil May Cry 1-3, Metroid Prime 1-2, every Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 2 (but not 3, because limitations!), Super Smash Brothers Melee, God of War 1-2, Tekken, Soul Calibur, F-Zero GX, and a butt load of other games were 60fps. 

So to make it sound like 30FPS has "stuck around for all these decades" and therefore it is an optimal gaming experience when higher framerates have been normal for a long time is silly. Especially because the earliest games that had lower frame-rates usually ran worse because of processing power. 30FPS would have stuck around whether or not developers believed (or in some cases rather made an excuse) that it feels more "cinematic", because some developers prioritize maxing out visual fidelity over framerate.

Lol, 30 FPS is not choppy.  Let's not use hyperbole to try and win a debate.  There is nothing choppy about a locked in 30 FPS. 

And every game could run at 60 FPS if devs so chose.  Sure, they would have to lower some of the fidelity, but it is possible.  Doom, for example, is still a really good looking game.  And while it is really fun to play, that 60 FPS screams that I am playing a video game.  Things do not move that smoothly across your eyes in the real world.  This is the same reason 48 FPS film failed.  While many people are fine with higher framerates in games, as it is a game, they do not want that in their films where it is supposed to be capturing lifelike images.  So, there is much more to the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS and 24 FPS vs 48 FPS than just HW limitations.  It is most often a preference. If I were making a game that I was aiming at complete realism, there is no way I would want it to run higher than 40 FPS.

It's mostly interpolation that makes film at 24 fps look bad on 4K TVs (i.e. the judder effect). The idea that 24 fps was chosen as the absolute minimum needed to trick the brain is also false. All sort of animation features lower frame rates. It was a relatively fluid image with an easily divisible number - which made for easy editing.

It's not more lifelike, it's more dream like, what movies should be. You can do a lot more with exposure and lighting with 24 fps. You can suggest a lot more with 24 fps. You can hide a lot less with 48 fps or 60 fps. Games choose to hide things in the dark to suggest more than there is. That works for movies as well, however a lower frame rate is just as effective.

Games also use all kinds of filters to make it look more 'realistic', especially motion blur. That pretty much contradicts the whole higher frame rate is better. Games try so hard to simulate (bad) cameras, it's not even funny anymore. Bloom, blur, lens flares, chromatic aberration, depth of field,  camera shake, fake HDR, film grain.  Yet without it they look sterile and fake.

Anyway the most important reason is, 24 fps enough to perceive smooth motion while leaving enough room for the brain to add its own interpretation. Movies don't aim for realism, they aim for make belief.

Why do those effects make it look more realistic? Does it really make them look more realistic, or simply more like what you are used to seeing from a camera on a screen? Many of those effects do not make sense in VR at all. Depth of field, useless. Motion blur, nope you can follow things with your eyes. Lens flares, film grain, bloom, chromatic aberration (already comes with the lenses unfortunately) all does not make any sense. Fake HDR breaks immersion and well camera shake, a definite no. VR aims for realism, yet can't use all the techniques that make games look more realistic!

Frame rate of course does make sense in VR as it's you turning your head yourself. Any stutter is bad. However the animation can still run at lower frame rates. It will be interesting to see how games will develop in VR once resolution goes up. Are they going to look more fake or will there be a new bag of tricks to add 'realism'.

My favorite movies run between 8 and 18 fps. Although those are averages and different elements are animated at different frame rates

Nausicaa = 56078/(116*60+27.05) = 8.03
Laputa = 69262/(124*60+4.22) = 9.30
Totoro = 48743/(86*60+20.14) = 9.41
Hotaru = 54660/(88*60+26.19) = 10.30
Kiki = 67317/(102*60+46.12) = 10.92
Omohide = 73719/(118*60+49.05) = 10.34
Porco = 58443/(93*60+18.19) = 10.44
Umi = 25530/(72*60) = 5.91
PomPoko = 82289/(118*60+59.01) = 11.53
Mimi = 64491/(111*60+0.12) = 9.68
OYM = 8053/(6*60+48.21) = 19.73
Mononoke = 144043/(133*60+24.22) = 18.00

Traditional animation uses key frames with exaggerated expressions and movements to enhance the animation. Variable frame rate and frame interpolation messes that up completely. For Monsters university they tried to calculate the hair physics. Turned out, based on filling in the movement between key frames, that wouldn't work at all. Impossible G-forces screwing with the calculations. It's an art to give the brain just enough to fill in the blanks in the way the director wants you to. Perhaps that's why games are still not considered art :) Not enough control over content delivery.

It is 100% hyperbolic to say that 30 FPS is choppy.  Movies run at 6 FPS less than those games, and they are not choppy, either.  And it's not just from experience that I know this, it is just a scientific fact.  It only takes ~20 FPS to fool the brain that a series of images are actually in motion, without the choppiness of something like stop motion animation.  At 24 FPS and 30 FPS, it is impossible for it to look choppy.  Sure, it's not as smooth as 60 FPS, but nothing choppy about it.  And motion blur is not to remove any kind of choppiness from low framerate, it is to address image ghosting from previous frames, mainly caused by turning the camera quickly.  It's also used to simulate something our eyes naturally do with motion.  A game running at 18 FPS isn't going to magically look smooth because you threw some motion blur at it.

Well, glad we agree that it is about preference.  30 FPS for games is here to stay because many think it actually looks more cinematic.  Same goes for 24 FPS for film. 

Yeah, sorry...going from 1080p to 4K does not magically makes 24fps look worse.