I average almost 4x60fps muhahahahahahahahaha!!!!! But seriously, I have a 120hz monitor and it's one of the games I can play at a consistent 120fps with vsync so it's nice. I new DMC is supposed to be very optimized as well.
Cod runs more like 45 to 50. Anyways 60 fps usually means ugly graphics. Kinda like Timesplitters 2 vs Halo ... I'll take Halo.
It has dips, but it averages at closer to 60fps than it does 45-50fps. Also, games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Revengeance still manage to look very good and run great. What's sad is that I can understand why games like Halo 4 and Gears of War 3 run at 30fps on the 360 but there are plenty of games that doesn't look anywhere near as good as Call of Duty that can barely maintain 30fps.
Since there wasn't a selection for it, I only notice a difference when a game suffers frame rate drops. If the game is a stable 30fps, it isn't noticed by me. If the game is a stable 60fps, it isn't noticed by me.
However if it drops from 60fps to 30fps and under in the span of seconds, yeah I notice that.
"The whole ending to MGS2 is a clusterf***. The game was good and then *POW* La Li Lu Le Lo and S.O.P.A. for about 45 minutes." -hankyhank3416
I think it's a huge difference. I played a ton of Dirt 2 on the Xbox 360 but when I played it in PC the difference was night and day. Not to say 30 FPS is bad, I still managed to play a ton of Forza Horizon even though I swore I would never play a racing game at 30 FPS.
There's a huge difference, but I think it only really affects the gameplay with poor or next to no animation, basically everything. The new DMC is probably a good example of very fluid animation that gives you plenty to react to in 30 frames though. Sure 60 fps would enhance the fluid motion even more, and 200 even better, but I think we would all have to buy new displays for the ladder. So, hopefully the next gen can just lock things at 60 and take advantage of everyones cheapass 60hz displays and wannabe 120hz TVs that only accept 60hz signals.