I am usually fine with 60fps, even variable 45-60 fps with VRR. A locked 40fps is also fine for me in most games.  I have a 240Hz monitor, but still max out graphics to a 60fps target most of the time.

The big exception is Virtual Reality. The higher the resolution and framerate the better when it comes to VR, imo, because otherwise I get horribly motion sick. 

Can't do VR at anything under a locked 75fps, and only start feeling comfortable >90fps. 

If VR ever became big, a lot of the current rendering trends in games would be entirely different. Most games probably would still be forward rendered with no temporal AA/upscaling and minimum FPS probably would be a solid 75. 

We'd still be talking about MSAA and the like. 

Vast majority can't tell a difference? Any data? Or just claims based on personal preference?

Meanwhile here a published scientific study demonstrating benefits at 90 fps compared to 60 fps.  

https://d1qx31qr3h6wln.cloudfront.net/publications/Tokey_NOSSDAV_25.pdf

Diminishing returns past 120 fps. Sure.  But objectively the average gamer does in fact benefit above 60 fps.

Have you though? "Most of their games" means the majority, not all. You just listed that there are games that are not all rock solid 60 (they still target 60) and some that target 30.

The majority of their games on Switch target 60... Curl is right. Doesn't matter if they have dips, doesn't matter if some franchises like Zelda target 30fps. That was never their point. How effective they are at maintaining 60fps is a fair but different discussion. 

Yes, I could hardly believe my eyes while reading the whole discussion. I thought it was some kind of joke. Like... Really? Mario Odyssey and Metroid Dread dropping some frames on very specific circumstances suddenly makes them non 60fps games? WTF?

This is the whole VA panels discussion all over again xD

Just wanna chime in here to say that this is an insane thing to say about a fighting game. A game like that at 30fps would be terrible to play competitively. Even disregarding that part they literally say in the video that the 60fps target is just about perfect aside from one specific scenario so I find the notion that cutting the frame rate in half is preferable to hitting 60fps over 99% of the time truly mind boggling. It's like saying someone should chop off their feet to avoid stubbing their toes.

Majority aren't achieving 60fps, that's the issue, we need to be realistic about the general proclamation that Nintendo is a "60fps powerhouse" is just not true.
They may target 60, but other than select handful, majority doesn't achieve it at all times.

Obviously simpler/lower budget games are able to achieve it, but for the most part, the games themselves come up short.

I am not in the business of making excuses for multi-billion dollar companies.

And VA would be a better panel than IPS. That's just fact, it's a better technology, not as good as OLED, but definitely better than the Switch 2's garbage IPS LCD panel.

Metroid Dread. - 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KrzJo15oSU
"Aims to provide a 60fps experience, which it achieves nearly all the time"
"For a short period of time, performance just seems to stutter, due to background streaming".

I am not saying what they achieved wasn't great or that it's a "poor experience", so don't falsely get the wrong idea here and misconstrue my statements.
Metroid is one of my favorite franchises, but it's still not a 60fps game at all times and that is just a blatant fact that you can not shove under the carpet.


Merio Odyseey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOpdeMVB5_8

"60fps, nearly at all times".
"It's not quite perfect, there are pockets of slowdown in select areas, which manifests as a small stutter, which happens most often in the city".

Again, I am not saying it's unplayable, I am saying that it's not a solid 60fps. That's just fact, the evidence doesn't lie.

I am starting to gather a picture that some key individuals like yourself are unable to take any form of criticism against Nintendo, even when it's warranted or factual. And that just makes this exchange funny.

No shit. 60fps would be preferred.

But anyone and their dog would take a 30fps locked over a variable 30-60fps output which brings forth frame pacing issues, screen tearing and more unless you had a VRR display.

These drops arent a "rare occurrence" like you proclaim.
If you had bothered to look at the evidence, there are stages where 60fps is not reliable achievbed.
Ice climbers with 16 players on mountain of dreams with the reflections on the stage will ensure you never get 60fps... With drops to 30fps.

Watch the video next time before you comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLvXDZOqA

Interesting study 

The summary

"The results show that player performance improves sharply from
7 f/s through 90 f/s, but sees little benefit for frame rates higher than
120 f/s"

First just a little bit of context, they're playing a PC game on mouse and keyboard. As I said console is a different experience, and so is analogue stick input... and in this example the reticule and targets really are very tiny and doesn't reflect most console gaming experiences.





On an experience level (how the users rated the smoothness of experience)
Player Experience:

15fps=1400 
30fps= 1800 (+400)
60fps= 2050 (+250)
90fps= 2000 ( -50)
120fp= 2100 (+50 relative to 60fps)

These are approximates since the graph doesn't show interval values.

If this doesn't scream diminishing returns, I don't know what does haha... Interestingly the 90fps was rated lower than 60fps and 165fps rated lower than 120, which implies some level of uncertainty of difference and high margin of error in these higher ranges. These are averages too, so even with the data we cannot say that the "majority" noticed 120fps over 60fps. It could simply be that 2-3 players out of the 44 did whilst the other remained static. Based of how small the increases are, I think thats actually a safe presumption. 

The one thing I'd clarify with my OG point is that I meant once you go below the 16ms range, most people cannot notice the difference... That seems to be supported by the study. It doesn't mean there isn't a discernible difference for the most advanced players.

I didn't see anybody use the term "60fps powerhouse"; I may have missed it somewhere, but I'm fairly sure I never said it.

If a game holds 60fps at "nearly all times" I think it is fair to say its framerate is solid and that it is a 60fps title.

And Smash having issues on one particular stage in one particular mode with 8 players all using a specific character is an edge case that isn't representative of 99.9% of the experience, as DF acknowledge in their testing. Most players will probably never encounter this scenario.

I doubt many people would want Smash Bros Ultimate or Mario Odyssey capped at 30fps just cos they dip under 60 like 1% of the time. I know I absolutely wouldn't.

No shit. 60fps would be preferred.

But anyone and their dog would take a 30fps locked over a variable 30-60fps output which brings forth frame pacing issues, screen tearing and more unless you had a VRR display.

These drops arent a "rare occurrence" like you proclaim.
If you had bothered to look at the evidence, there are stages where 60fps is not reliable achievbed.
Ice climbers with 16 players on mountain of dreams with the reflections on the stage will ensure you never get 60fps... With drops to 30fps.

Watch the video next time before you comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLvXDZOqA

It always amazes me when people won't accept being wrong.  The article demonstrates the average player benefits from fps above 60 fps.  You said the "majority" of players don't.  Your statement was wrong.  Pretty simple.  Btw there are other articles as well.  As fps goes up, performance goes up.  When you say the "majority" it was based on nothing and it is factually untrue.  

Also enjoy how you picked the graph of perception but ignored the graphs that show an uptake is objective based performance criteria.

Like I said, it isn't that look of 120 fps, it is the increased accuracy and responsive controls.  The article proves it is a real thing.