Everyone's perception is different. I can do 60 fps. I prefer 90 fps minimum and 120 fps target. I see no benefit at 144 or higher. Anything below 60 fps and I just get frustrated. That's my perception.

30 fps though is something we should move away from. Given how far we've come in with all kinds of hardware and software features.

Wild. 60 looks terrible to me. I can't really tell the difference above 120fps though.

Well unreal Tournament is older than me and i am a legal adult. So suffice to say that the technology wasn't really there yet for games

Kids these days....

Sure. And I used to be okay downloading my porn at 56kbps. Now I want my smut so hi-def that I can see the actors' emotional scars. Peoples' standards change as technology advances. If you want to be stuck in 2001, go right ahead, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

I remember playing OSRS and Team Fortress 2 on my shitter PC with like 10-20fps.

It was fine back then, considering my brain hadn't yet normalized 60+, but nowadays I struggle with anything under 50fps. I guess I played too many fast-paced games since then because Switch games that fluctuate between 25-30fps really turn me off from playing.

Can agree. I can play 30fps without complaints because most of my life I was playing on low-end PCs

It's not just about how smooth the game looks, but also how smooth it feels to control. 30 fps is way too sluggish for me. Granted, most people would probably reach a point of diminishing return somewhere after 60 fps, unless you're someone with the reflexes and hardware (high polling rate mouse, good frame timing on your monitor, low system lag, etc.) to back it up. I'm quite comfy between 120 to 144 fps, but there's some absolute monsters out there who would probably find that too slow.

If it's not a very fast moving game, like a turn based RPG, then it doesn't matter that much, but at least 60 fps is still a must for me to not look like a slideshow.