60fps does enhance modern racing games, but a lot of good racing games existed before 60fps was attainable.
Edit: I wonder how many people would purchase a $40 racing game that topped out at 30fps compared to a $60 racing game that offered 60fps? I’d wager twice as many $40/30fps versions would sell than $60/60fps versions.
Damn @hippocoder … I wasted 15 minutes thinking about a reply instead of doing something useful! 
I’d go for the best quality you can pack into your game with the budget and time you are given. You can always spend the last two days coding a fancy menu full of quality options for the user to disable 
Sounds like an Arowx thread!
As far as I’m concerned, in no world is 30 FPS acceptable. Literally the only caveat to that is adventure games and visual novels, where it’s tolerable but still bad (and as far as the question is concerned, I’d still choose 60 FPS in those cases).
Like, I played The Descendent, a Life Is Strange / Walking Dead third person “narrative adventure,” and immediately stopped playing because it was locked to 30 FPS. And the developer gave some BS excuse for why it was locked that I called him out on. Eventually I fixed it with a registry edit, which I posted for all to use.
Given the discussion, I think one of these comparisons should be posted. Watch at 720p60 or higher obviously 
Worth pointing out: should be obvious but I’m a PC gamer. If you’re looking to put the game on a console, they don’t seem to care too much.
Of course, the problem isn’t just the framerate but the frame pacing, which can be a bigger issue some of the time.
My first enjoyable experience with racing games was Monster Truck Madness on Windows 95. Our family computer was from that bizarre time period where the processor could handle the graphics better than the actual graphics card and I remember seeing a noticeable difference between 30 and 60.
That’s a rather moot point since there is no way of knowing if they would have kept that status had there been one.
The esports player: 60fps
The CS:GO player: 60fps
The speedrunner: 60fps
The for-the-story player: 30fps 4xQ
The turn-based player: 30fps 4xQ
The optimization engineer: 30fps 4xQ
The art director: 30fps 4xQ
The indie developer: 30fps 1xQ
The designer: 60fps 4xQ
Everyone else, it depends.
I don’t really understand your comment in response to his, but I’ll point out that DriveClub and Forza Horizon 3, probably the two most lauded racing games of the past few years, were both 30 FPS on consoles. So even though I and it sounds like you too wouldn’t accept it, it’s still happening, and it’s happening in “good” games.
Eh. Not necessarily.
His comment was pretty straightforward. He was pointing towards some games and making the statement that their lack of a higher frame rate did not hold them back from being considered good games.
My comment was pretty straightforward too. I was simply pointing out that we don’t know if they would have still been considered good had there been a higher frame rate game because there were no higher frame rate games to compare them to from that time period.
Take a moment to go look at some of the titles he was mentioning. Some of them are old enough that the only visuals they have are the HUD, the player, the enemies, and a very basic track. What we consider to be minor features today could very easily have been major features back then. One of them could have been frame rate.
Aside from the answer being dependent on the game genre, it also highly depends on the size and ability of the game’s developer.
Greater graphics detail/quality requires more skill, more time, and more money, on a rapidly ascending scale. Finishing the game is one (difficult) thing, and every update after the game is released requires the same (or greater) level of quality. Graphics detail/quality is an escalating arms race. Proceed with caution.
Ony is getting real warm.
As soon as someone tells me to choose wisely I can’t fight the urge to pick a result at random.
Ultimately there was this one case where I got a headache from playing at 30 FPS. So I’m going to go for 60. But it was very specific to the single instance. Most of the time I don’t give a damn what the framerate is.
The dress is blue with black stripes.
A straw has one hole.
< 60 fps makes my eyes hurt.
Unity 30fps appears to be substantially worse than other engines at 30fps, perceptually. Why is that - or is it just me?
Pretty interesting - results here mirror twitter results, though I suppose most of the respondents are developers on twitter as well.
Also interesting - more responses here. I was going to say retention here would probably fall faster, but - twitter is a minute here gone the next.
Sorry to run quack-analytics on your pole. 
Might want to compare frame pacing, as well as out-of-the-box motion blur support. Motion blur is also a big part of how/why lower framerates can “work.”
Edit: a preliminary look implies that Unreal has out-of-the-box support for per object motion blur, while Unity doesn’t. Maybe that’s part of the reason.
And there were C64 flight simulators that ran at like 2 fps that were “good” games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCehXfpJVUA
Now it’s hard to dumb it down lower than wireframe graphics, haha, but if it was possible, I think given the choice between 2 fps and 4 fps, 4 fps would have been a lot better with “worse” graphics. For sim-like racing games in particular, things can happen really, really fast.
I do realize that much past 60 fps there are diminishing returns (plus a lot of TV’s through HDMI might not be able to go past that anyway).
Luckily the latest Forza and Forza Horizon games look terrific and run at 60 fps, so it’s not like it’s always a binary thing.
I think it is better to provide the player with quality options so the player can choose.
Besides, as already stated the answer depends on what kind of game it is. A slow paced game like Myst for example should go full on quality, as any lag doesn’t actually affect the game. A faced pace twitcher though needs better performance to be taken seriously.
Almost all old game where 60fps if they were not 3d, we had slowdown, but 60fps slowdown
30fps is only a thing with 3d heavy weight computation
Also fzero was always 60fps, from snes to gc
EDIT:
Also fps is less important than control latency, fps is only the visual, you can have very reactive games that poll control and logic in between frame multiple time to compensate for choppy visual, that’s what make all those n64 by nintendo game bearable and legendary, you could basically play the game by simply modeling the world in your head.
Modern game have a big loss now due to latency on big tv and 3 frames latency due to modern architecture.
Personally, 60fps @ 4x quality.
I’m almost always going to compromise away from there, but the compromises I’m happy to make depend very much on the nature of the game I’m playing / making. So, I can’t answer the poll.
Edit: You’re right that when context is added there’s really not much to be debated. My current main project is aiming for 30fps on our target spec machine because a) it’s a fairly slow paced game and b) some parts of the game will definitely benefit from an extra 16ms of pretty.
If I was making an action game, on the other hand, I’d almost certainly go the other way.