Why do people insist on more than 60fps in games?
A question I fail to understand. This 60 being for 60hz screens. All the extra frames are being wasted. Maybe there's something I don't known but from my understanding of it if your game fps constantly equals the refresh rate of your screen you have the best and anything more is superfluous.
If the physics of the game and your user input is tied to the renderer (your fps) then if you have fps of 120 your user inputs and the physics engines reactions will be smoother even if the rendered image is not smoother.
The fluctuation of fps is usually a bigger killer than low frame rate. By being able to run a crazy high fps it means you can lock the fps to 60 and no matter what happens on screen your fps will be constant.
There are a few things that running over your refresh rate can improve the game experience in subtle ways that the really focused
users might notice but in general most users are happy with the fps once it is over 24 fps as long as you don't tell them the fps!
The human eye is pretty rubbish at noticing once you go over 24fps, that's why all cinema's have 24fps as standard. If you have games with fast movement the gap between the frames has more impact and is more likely to be seen with the eye which is why racing games (Gran Turismo) are usually 60fps and all other games (Call Of Duty) 30fps on consoles.
For example F1 2012 on the Mac people say feels "smooth" and the fps might be 45/50 fps, however those same people will say XCOM is smooth when it is running at just 15 fps. How the game works and what it is trying to do vastly effects what fps is needed for the game to feel smooth.
When you get down to it it's about user preference and also in some cases just wanting to be able to post bigger numbers the old "mine's bigger than yours" ego thing.
Edwin