I was a graphics over framerate guy until the start of the last gen, but then I saw the light. I'm going through A Plague Tale: Requiem right now and playing on performance mode (which isn't always 60fps but close enough), and switched to resolution to see how it is since it's one of these games that's not super fast paced etc. MY GOD my brain and eyes couldn't take it, it looked so slow and "heavy".

Come on people you need to stop arguing that games are unplayable at frame rates below 60.

Gamers on internet are idiots that is clear. If it's not the people that look at games instead of playing them it's people looking at numbers for games instead of playing them.

I promise that a game like Mario Kart is fully playable and enjoyable at 30 fps too. I do it regularly when running 3-4 player split screen with my kids and wife. If you go from a 2 player split screen or single player to 4 player split screen in the same session the difference is initially jarring. But you get used to it within 10 seconds of playing.

Doom on Switch is fully playable and enjoyable at 30 fps. Specially since you play with a controller anyway (30 fps with KB+M is more noticeable but still far from unplayable).

Stable frame rate is more important than hight frame rate (as I said in my previous post). I much rather have locked 20 fps than an fps varying between 40-60.

But sure 60 and above is nice, it's just not a must.

what you find enjoyable doesn't mean others will. If a gamer has a powerful  PC and been playing 60fps-120fps for years he might find 30fps not enjoyable. for me 30fps is a huge downgrade in gameplay and graphics. Sure it's playable but its a huge downgrade, and for current gen consoles a step backwords imo.

I'm super late to the party, but I'll share my two cents.

In general, I prefer a higher (stable) frame rate over a higher resolution. But I am also very flexible when it comes to low frame rate and resolution. I'm willing to put up with some pretty ancient tech if the gameplay experience speaks to me.

Even entry-level PC monitors and lower mid-range TVs support VRR these days. There's zero reason to keep or prefer a framerate locked at low values anymore, you are just going to have more latency.

I bought my TV in 2020. No VRR. :(

On consoles I'm a bit more flexible/forgiving given the limitations of the hardware. If there's a tangible difference in visuals with Raytracing and the framerate isn't terrible then 30fps I'm fine with, for slower based games. If there's an option for both without comprising visual fidelity too much I go with performance (60fps) most of the time. Also depends on the genre.. Say like; fast-paced action games, fps, beat em ups etc 60fps+ is a must, while visuals and bells and whistles take the back seat.

In all honesty, Raytracing on current generation consoles are way too taxing at the moment as RDNA 2 isn't well equipped to handle it. Hopefully, next generation we should see RT becoming more of a standard feature (with good enough performance) as we're increasing hitting the limit of what can be acheived with normal rasterization.

Stability, steady frame delivery, being able to forward predict motion to coincide with frame display. With VRR the game engine doesn't know when the frame is shown, just as soon as it's done rendering. Lock it to v-sync and you can tune your game engine to advance the game logic exactly 16ms/33ms at a time (or whatever value you choose as target frame rate). With VRR it might take longer, might take shorter, not ideal for racing games.

People saying  it's say it's playable always make me laugh. why would I wanna play 30fps shooter, fighter, action, or racer when you have tons of options for 60fps and yes it makes a huge difference for those games.

No, it doesn’t.