>>719503282
What would this look like at 100 frames?

it both is and isn't importance
the gif you showed is an example of different movement animations, but ultimately a game can run both in the same number of frames
having more frames for the game to run allows more control over the game itself, whereas simply seeing smoother animation is more of a mental thing that helps movement and user input have more impact and the game feel more present and responsive even if it isn't
both are desirable, but just pointlessly shoving in frames where they don't belong can have the inverse affect

think of frames like seeing with your eyes, if a bird flies at you and you see it fly in its real speed, you're seeing reality
remove actual frames and the bird flies slower but you're still seeing it fly in real time, add visible frames and you're seeing it more clearly and faster
now remove visible animation frames but keep the actual speed and you can't react to it properly, your vision is impaired
add visual "frames", aka fake frames, but don't actually speed up the framerate, and what you're seeing becomes a hallucination and feels unreal again and you can't react in time

>>719503282
more frames

Games should be at 300fps but Mario's run cycle should still be 3fps. That way the game won't lag when there are a quintillion sprites on screen like how SMB3 lags in a couple of the autoscrollers.

>>719503282
Because I don't like seeing fast movements in games looking choppy. It's unsatisfying. I want enough FPS so that fast on-screen events can be properly tracked with my eyes, and the visual difference between one frame and the next one should be as small as possible. Playing under 80 or so FPS makes games feel choppy.

>>719503282
Completely serious, why is having post-24 FPS important and something you should be asking for?

>>719503282
>>719503974
Completely serious, why is having post-1 FPS important and something you should be asking for?

>>719503894
only because you play on shity display technology
i bet my crt monitor at 60 fps look more smooth then yours as 240

>>719504314
I am not talking about blur, I am talking about the differences between frames being too obvious if your FPS is too low. Let's say you move the camera to your right, with 200FPS every single milimeter will be fluid and it will not look choppy. Now do that same move at 3FPS and the three frames will look radically different because they will be showing completely different things, because the frame rate will be too slow to keep up with the movement. Has nothing to do with display technology.

>>719503282
Because monitors that display above 60hz have existed for decades now. You will have diminishing returns above 120hz but the 60hz vs 120hz is night and day. 120hz vs 540hz not so much.
On PC in particular having above 60fps is desirable for the simple reason of how a GPU generates frames vs how a monitor displays them.
These two things do not line up perfectly so the more frames you have the more you reduce the delay of an input vs an output onto the screen which is how you reduce input lag.
This is also why higher refresh rate monitors also have less input lag, because every second more updates to the display are occurring.
120FPS on a 60hz display will play and feel better than 60FPS for this reason.
Even more so if you say get 300FPS on a 200hz display.

>>719503282
LCD ghosting is somewhat reduced by (extremely) high refresh rates. Framerate ended up being dragged into that mess by marketers and so here we are with fake framerate generating ghosting.

>>719504314
Agreed. My CRT at 480p also looks better than an OLED at 4k.

>>719503282
>Completely serious
i don't think you are