This discussion is for real? Seems it is.
OK. The perfect case would be infinite (or as many as possible) frames per second in any footage (movie, game etc). But obviously enough such a goal is unachievable due to existing limitations and practical reasons. You see where 24 fps is coming from? - the cheapest way to create a somewhat believable illusion not of an accelerated slideshow but of motion.
About 24 fps being cinematic - this point is invalid. Previous '
cinematic' standard of 16 frames per second doesn't look right when played back at 24 fps (
superfast b&w dudes on crack effect) because lazy job was done to adapt the footage. If you want nice experience with 48 fps you need better equipment, special effects, different angles and so on.
A game using 15 animation frames for some action @30 fps will probably look better than the same game @60 fps. Make it 60 animation frames and it's a different story. But it requires more effort aka more $. And better hardware to maintain solid 60 fps.
Besides high framerate makes it possible to recreate both fluid and jerky sequences
meanwhile lower fps fails at fluidity.
Agree with the OP, but would people consider me fucking stupid if i said horror games work well with 30 FPS ? By that i mean, running at 30 FPS is essentially limiting the amount of information you are seeing on screen, so an enemy darting past you through a corridor or something, you get to see less of them, leaving some of the "what the fuck was that" unknown stuff (in 60 FPS, you have more frame to "see" whatever it was if that makes sense).
Although as always, an option for either to appease everyone would be nice.
So 10 fps will make a horror game a pants changing simulator? No. All that needs to be done to
an enemy darting past you through a corridor
is for designer to adjust enemy's speed to achieve desired effect.