TV movie at 24 fps, other content 25 or 50 fps. Sure, the TV is further away, less light in the faster light-sensitive corners. Still, in gaming, the FPS chase is likely artifically promoted by the vendors.

And then gamers talk about lagging (but anything after CRT smears), which displays a whole lot of misinformation/confusion in the audience. Which is mostly teens, which fiercely defend their convictions; a prime audience for campaigns.

No. No it is not. 60fps is totally fine for most things. Even great FPS's can have excellent, snappy gameplay at 60fps.

There is more to responsiveness and crispness of the picture than just the framerate. An excellent gaming monitor that has minimal input processing time, virtually no ghosting at 60fps, and vibrant colors is going to feel WAY better than some cheap office monitor at 60fps. Especially if it has adaptive refresh rate.

It's the ENTIRE reason CRTs were heralded as a wonderful gaming experience for the longest time until LCDs got good enough for humans to no longer notice the input lag, ghosting, and lesser color space of LCDs.

Only in the past handful of years have LCDs come out at reasonable price points that can even approach a good CRT.

BTW, my slowest monitor is a 120hz 1440p, so I'm not talking from cope.

I had plenty of fun playing Cyberpunk on my steam deck hooked up to a 1080p monitor running upscaled at around 30fps.

There's a paper somewhere where researchers tested this. Some people discern higher frame rates, but many could not as the brain has a refresh rate of its own that analyzes incoming vision stream. At some point the brain won't notice a difference because its only getting X snapshots per second, not a true live stream.

That's a strange looking apple you've got there, friend.