30fps is horrid and basically unplayable for a first person PC game.
This isn't a movie, it is active, not passive. "Better than traditional films" is completely irrelevant.
Take a game where you can cap the framerate and bind a key to switch between capped at 30 and capped at 60, if you're playing the game you'll immediately feel the transition and 30fps will feel relatively unplayable.
This isn't a first-person PC game, and until quite recently 30fps was considered a playable framerate. It's only in the last couple of years that "60 has become the new 30".
Yes, of course a frame lock sucks, but it's not the end of the world and many people wouldn't even notice if not for everyone complaining about it.
That is complete nonsense about "last couple of years", I remember wanting ~40fps for half-life over a decade ago.
Yes, at that time (10-14 years ago), 30 fps was considered playable. But that is "playable" and even then wasn't recognised as a great framerate for most of that period.
For the last decade, less than that has been seen as bad. In fact a few years after half-life's release (when it was still popular but hardware had matured) 100fps was the goal, to match the 100Hz that most monitors back then could do. 60fps only even entered the discussion with the switch to TFT/flat panels with their lower refresh rates.
In fact a few years after half-life's release (when it was still popular but hardware had matured) 100fps was the goal.
Half-life also exhibited strange behavior if the 100 fps frame cap was lifted by turning on developer mode. If I recall correctly (forgive me as this was almost a decade ago) weapon mechanics or movement speed changed.
This isn't a movie, it is active, not passive. "Better than traditional films" is completely irrelevant.
Take a game where you can cap the framerate and bind a key to switch between capped at 30 and capped at 60, if you're playing the game you'll immediately feel the transition and 30fps will feel relatively unplayable.