You may or may not agree with this but Ray Tracing to me is a full-on gimmick in the negative internet lingo definition. At least for now. It was only used to sell consoles even tho this generation is clearly not ready for it. PC may be a different story. Maybe if a Pro version of these consoles happens or next-gen consoles entirely when you can have both RT and 60FPS at the very least. I much prefer 60FPS modes over RT modes in console games. A steady framerate always looks better to me than shinier but chugging.

Some of you may be very fortunate to have 120FPS Monitors and TVs...great but 60FPS still isn't the standard in games like it was in the 6th gen. Do you care about framerate or visual fidelity or just neutral on the whole thing?

It all depends on the game in question.

For something really fast moving that requires quick reflexes, like a racing game or a twitch shooter, I'd prefer a higher framerate.

The thing is though, running at 60fps as standard doesn't just limit graphics, it also limits what you can do in terms of things like level complexity, physics, AI, simulation, etc.

For that reason, there are instances where I'd prefer 30fps with more focus on scale, interactivity, and complexity over a smoother but less sophisticated experience. The next Zelda after TOTK for example.

I think of 30fps the same way I think of the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Played through the entire Dead Space Remake on Preformance mode. Quality mode actually ruined the experience for me

I usually go for the performance mode 60FPS option over fidelity mode or 4K because I play on a 1080p TV. I like it and this gen is the first time I've experienced consistent 60FPS across multiple games.

I'm not a graphics junky though. I play a lot of older and retro games and for the most part don't mind the older tech and graphics.

Ray Traced global illumination is more than possible on current generation consoles... And is certainly not a gimmick.

Cross-gen games that tack on Ray Traced Shadows/Reflections however isn't providing the bang-for-buck visual upgrade which has tarnished the features credibility.

As for Visuals vs Performance... My preference actually depends on the game.

Twitch shooter like Call of Duty? I prefer higher framerates.
Slower-paced games like Elder Scrolls? - Give me graphics @ 30fps, it doesn't require twitch movement. - Provided it has a quality implementation of per-object motion blur.

At the moment I am playing Diablo 4 on my PC which is locked at 144fps, even though it's on Ultra as my hardware far exceeds the games requirements, I would still prioritize performance.

I'll take longer draw distances and less pop-in over higher frame rates.

A solid world gives me much better immersion than doubling the fps. Horizon FW actually gave me migraines in performance mode because of the flickering foliage (later fixed but was bad at release) and in VR I'm fine with reprojection (60fps to 120fps) over 90 or 120 fps to get sharper more detailed visuals. In FS2020 I kept my frame rate target around 24fps (144hz screen with v-sync) to increase draw distance and super sampling. TotK fixed the severe frame rate drops and now the mostly 30fps doesn't bother me one bit. The LOD pop in and low res low contrast visuals do make it harder to see though. On A Switch pro or Switch 2 I would rather play it at 1080p30 or 1440p30 without LOD popping than play in 60fps.

That doesn't mean high fps isn't awesome. Red Matter 2 on PSVR2 runs at native 120fps with super sampling. It simply looks amazing and rock steady while playing. But that's achieved with simpler geometry, smaller spaces and no other characters / AI to speak of. Very cool to see what the headset is capable of, but RE8 does much better at selling a real immersive environment at a bit lower resolution and 60fps.

I did vote for framerate, but narrowly. There are some games that I would much rather have cleaner visuals for than the framerate.
I wish more games opted for a dynamic setting that had 30 FPS for cutscenes for a higher resolution and 60 FPS for the action with a lower resolution.
I wish Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom were 60 FPS, but that's nearly impossible without the resolution capping out at 480p and a worse draw distance, among other things. Even most open-world games on PS4 and Xbox One (if not all) are 30 FPS.
I wish Animal Crossing: New Horizons gave us an option. Look, I get Animal Crossing on the GameCube is N64 graphics. Thus, it made 60 FPS quite feasible. City Folk was also a bit ugly for a Wii game (despite the great art style), but also was 60 FPS. Why not give the players a choice this time? 60FPS for worse visuals or 30FPS for better visuals.
The next TV I get will probably be 4K120Hz. I'm not in a particular hurry, as I've only had my 4K TV for about 2 and a half years.

I've been playing all my games on performance mode but I've tried fidelity mode for a handful of games. While there is a graphical difference, its not huge, and I was actively seeking out improvements. I can't imagine going back to 30 FPS, especially with the fast loading, making games feel so much more fluid overall.

However I wouldn't mind a hybrid mode, something like RT performance, which gives you the best of both worlds. I hope more developers follow Insomniac's approach and give us a variety of options.

Higher framerate. A game being 30fps isn't a dealbreaker by any means though. Don't really care much about graphics.