That depends on resolution and motion. The more stuff moves around the more frames you need for a stable picture. Your eyes follow movement, 'collecting' the incoming image, not quite like a camera does but you can compare it to shooting a moving object with long shutter speed. Move the camera with the object and the object is clear while the background is motion blurred. To be able to do that with something moving over a screen, it needs to smoothly move over the screen. The more pixels, the more steps, the higher frame rate you need. 

So while static and slow moving visuals are fine at 30fps, fast movement can use higher frame rates. And indeed, a stable frame rate is always better than VRR fluctuating between 40 and 80fps, or worse a 60fps game dropping to 30fps when missing v-sync. As long as the frame rate is steady, you can easily get used to it and adapt to the input lag. When I was at my most competitive in GT Sport, changing tvs meant adapting all my brake points and turn in points again. The slight difference in display lag meant having to adjust my timing as well. I can't imagine playing a racing game with VRR. Render time needs to be constant to make the perfect lap.

But agreed, 120fps to get a bit better motion clarity is a waste of processing power. Aliasing and pop in are more distracting, so spend the extra time there.

That does not sound like a frame rate issue but as a input lag issue. 

Nintendo have the right idea in my opinion; choose simplicity at 60fps or more complexity at 30fps depending on which best fits the nature of the game design.

Games like Splatoon that are all about fast paced action benefit more from a higher framerate, while a game like Tears of the Kingdom works better if you run at 30 and use the extra processing time to push a huge and complex world.

Not sure we you keep bringing up switch.  It's  not even a current gen console and you can't keep on pushing open worlds to do complex things. Zelda totk had to recycle many things and reuse a whole map and took them 6 years. Now imagine if they wanted to make a whole new map with next-gen hardware/graphics . Red dead 2 on ps4 took 10 years to make.  We aren't  going see much advancements in the open world genre except refined gameplay and perfomance. So when Nintendo makes the next zelda I assure it will be 60fps on switch 2. The switch can't even run any open world on 360/ps3 at 60fps you  keeps on bringing up the  switch

I am willing to explain it to you, but if you're just going to keep making spammy and uninformed posts then it's not worth the time.

Just forget it. My main point 60fps is mainly a current gen topic.

RT very well may develop and be something special in the future.  All I can say is with ps5 games, RT is meh at best with today's games. I'll take the fps and 120 hz all day.  Ratchet at 120 hz is a sight to behold.

Okay.

No offense but claiming we won't see further advances in open world games is absurd, especially when we've just had Tears of the Kingdom blow experienced devs away on the weakest platform on the market. There are literally countless ways that future games could advance on what we have now, just use your imagination. Thinking there's no room left to grow from here is extremely pessimistic.

The reused map in TOTK is less than half the game, the new areas alone are bigger than most full open world games, plus it's production cycle was extended by the covid pandemic. So a similarly complex game with a new map wouldn't need to take longer than TOTK did, it could even take less time without a pandemic to slow things down.

As for Zelda being 60fps on Switch 2, that's all depends on the type of game they want to make. No matter how strong your hardware is, a 30fps game will always have twice as much processing time per frame than a 60fps game. That's twice as much processing time to spend on scale, simulation, physics, AI, etc. If they choose to follow the BOTW/TOTK formula of a complex emergent game world, then they may decide 30fps is a better choice for the game they have in mind.

Zelda tokt is mainly impressive for its physics but the world it self isn't anywhere as impressive as red dead 2. The amount of ai and things happening, detail and graphics I just don't see things getting much better then that. Mainly cause the budget for those games are just too massive 

Look at games 15 years ago, then look at games today. Progress is constant and inevitable. You may not see how they can get better, but I promise you, developers will find a way.