Earlier today, we reported on the fact that Cliff Bleszinski is aiming for thirty frames-per-second in Gears of War 3, eschewing the popular 60 FPS goals many developers say they strive towards. This led reader digitalgibs to post:
60fps is still relevant. 30 is the bare minimum, but 60 provides a sub eye-shutter speed that enhances everything from animations to input response times. The only saving grace of a 30fps console game is that most TV's have 120fps refresh that make the fps look better than it really is
Interesting point, but I'd counter with this: Films are (traditionally) shot at 24 FPS, and have been for more than a century, and that's worked out okay.
I'm not sure I've ever played a video game that I thought would be more fun if the frame-rate was better, nor have I ever played an otherwise lame game and thought: "At least the frame-rate was decent!" This gets into the "lots of polygons = a good game!" territory I remember from a few years ago, and that was wack (as we used to say back then.)
So, what about you: How much, on a scale of one to eleven, do you care about frame-rates? I care about a two.