If you have access, try playing the HD remake of Medal of Honor Frontline (which runs at 60FPS, albeit not locked) and then plug in the PS2 game. While the HD remake is much more technically capable, it does nothing to impress, while the original has a certain feeling of an overwhelming experience too powerful for even the game to keep up with. The Shadow of the Colossus remake might have felt the same way if the design team had chosen to try 60FPS rendering instead of locking to 30FPS.
It's not quite totally comparable in games because no matter what you still have artificial images on your screen instead of real people and places (if The Hobbit can be considered as such,) but even here there's a difference in how your eyes and brain comprehend motion blur and refresh rate.
And the one big difference between movies and games is that movies have an inactive audience looking not for reality, but "cinematic reality". With games, so many new titles and every genre places the player in a different perspective and there's no expectation of how things should look other than "good"; with movies, you have over 80 years of experience of people sitting in a dark room and knowing what's going to be on that screen. Change the projector framerate and you've changed the quality of the picture presentation in a way that might be technically "better" but is still different from everything you've known and liked about cinema since before you can remember.
I hope it works out for The Hobbit, but don't expect standards to change. We'll still see 24FPS movies for a long time to come. And despite the underlying hyperbole when game designers say it, ("Oh, we intentionally chose 30FPS to focus on our cinematic presentation" almost always translates not to 30 looking more movielike but instead to they couldn't get those graphics with that engine without compromise,) there is even in gaming sometimes a good reason why 30 might be the right way to go.
