I dont know, to me it makes no sense.
For FPS games I think its improved response times, but I honestly cannot see any visible improved smoothness on 120fps vs 60.
144 was always a weird number but done purely for marketing as 144 is a bigger number than 120, and 240 I think we getting completely silly now.
As I said I personally dont get it how so many have brought into it.
I remember when the ps4 launched someone showed some fake footage saying its 1080 vs 720 (both were actually 720) and loads of people were like wow that 1080p is so much better LOL, a lot of it is placebo in my view. I know many wont agree with me, but thats just how I see it.
So to me a real test is if you showed 120 vs 60 (not labeled), and then seeing if a clear majority could tell the difference. Likewise for 240 vs 120.
As an example if you watch say a 60 FPS GN video on youtube, does his hand movements etc. seem not the same as if you was looking at him from your eyes directly?
Also according to telemetry data and feedback on forums, the steady option is the most popular on FF15 ps4 pro.
The 3 options are.
Steady - 30fps fixed 1080p, generally there is no stuttering or frame drops, works really well by console standards. I run this mode its by far the best for me.
Lite - Same graphics fidelity as steady but 60fps target, usually hovers at 40-60. Least popular setting.
High mode - 1800p upscaled to 4k, increase draw distances and LOD. 30fps target, but stutters pretty badly as console not capable.
In fact steady wasnt originally there on FF15 for the ps4 pro, square enix added it after a barrage of complaints that people didnt like the 60fps target.
Also what about fast sync?
Nvidia said they developed that so people got the better response times but it still outputs at lower framerates to the monitor, so it renders as fast as possible but limits its display output hz.
