First off, humans can definitely see more than 24 fps. Just ask an eye doctor. There's a reason filmmakers are experimenting with higher frame rates. To make movies look more fluid and realistic. If 24 was the limit of what we could see why is tv 30 fps? Oh and the number of frames is in the name. It's one frame every 1/24 of a second.
Video games are actually different and more complicated. For example, there is no motion blur in video games. It's much easier to see "choppy" frames in 30 fps games. This battle with frame rates on PCs isn't some conspiracy. There is a difference that humans can see. I realize that the higher the frame rates go with PCs, the less we will be able to tell the difference, but there is a difference. If you showed me two the same game side-by-side, one 30 fps, the other 120 fps, I bet I could tell the difference. When I looked at that side by side that someone just posted it seemed clear to me that the left one was higher fps. Even in the first five seconds. I don't know if that's right or if that's even a good representation of 60 vs 30 but I could tell.
The car crash example doesn't really apply here. The whole point is to bring the video down to a low frame rate. It just proves that 24 fps is a low frame rate.
I disagree. I feel that 1080p and up (in the future) should be standard. I personally don't see a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, but I'm not going to say anyone is lying. I'm an audiophile, so I hear things others don't. However, if there is a difference, even those that see it must admit that the difference is slight, and in my opinion, 1080p visuals at a consistent frame rate is more important.
I certainly don't want to see developers pushing their games to have 1080p and 60 fps at the sacrifice of more items on screen to create more immersive experiences. And no matter what, I NEVER want to see a frame rate drop when my screen is heavily populated.
And you can bet your bums that if I so much as see one game with a screen tearing issue (ie: Gran Turismo 5), you can bet your money on me showing up to complain about it... Profusely.
I do make exceptions on the "30fps-as-long-as-it's-steady" rule. Some games are 60FPS required for me, such as fighters and music games because of the timings in them.
That said, the eye does not see in frames per second because our eyes and brain operate differently than sync-locked video equipment.
The Assassin's Creed games definitely need a bump up in framerate. Hopefully this happens on the PS4.
A bump in framerate won't fix it's hick-ups. Even in 60fps, it could still have the same stutter.
It just needs to run at a steady 30fps.
Bluray movies at 24P still have issues when the action on screen picks up, especially in 3D this issue gets even worse.
Thats why the next Avatar movie is going to be shot in 60FPS 3D.
I'm kinda excited to see what kind of difference it will make.
Finally, the structure of my question is that you would have to disprove every possible outcome to be correct and I would just have to have one that would likely be beneficial. That's statistically in my favor by quite a bit.