Don't let people fool you in thinking VRR is the answer. For a game which performs less than optimal it makes the game more tolerable, but it does not improve controller response.....
If I'm playing a fighter at 120fps and it drops frames in one level to 92fps, but is 120 everywhere else, that experience is not the end of the world, all this judder talk is way overblown by extremist framerate purists who are more concerned about when a frame drops instead of the overall experience......Alternatively, if I'm playing the same game at 120hz and it's framerate is falling more often in all levels, it's tearing all over the place, VRR does not replace frames, it's a worse experience relative to controller response, which is more important....Hence why higher frames is more important.
A game is 60fps and it drops 1-2 frames it's not the end of the world.....One instance of a spike in a level is not the end of the world, the whole experience does not become unplayable because of it. As a matter of fact, the lower your framerate target, the more framerate consistency is necessary.....30fps should be a flat line, dips below 30fps is much worse than dips from 60fps and the same at 120fps, it's an ascending slope and I know that if you play on a 60fps panel or a 120fps panel, that would be the way these monitors are synced, yet the controller response would be much higher with drops from the higher framerates anyway, so certainly not in the same category as 30 with dips....You would still be playing with high frames.....Even if a game does not dip below 30fps and it's a clean 33.3ms line, I prefer an unlocked 60fps mode for controller feedback and response.....If people want a cap, they can have it, but I say give me the option of an unlocked framerate just the same, don't lock it just because someone says that's how he prefers to play....I will take better controller response everytime...
As for VRR, that won't be standard for everybody for years.....The focus should be for devs to ship their games in a better state. Yet that's a slippery slope, people will complain either way. Devs will have to lower fidelity/settings to hit framerates and people will complain about graphics then.....It's not as good as the other version's graphics, but boosting graphics will come at the cost of framerate.....It's the same thing really, many people wanted 60fps this gen, devs are pushing 60, even offering options and many modes. People still complain about the modes outside of what they asked for.....You were asking for 60fps, they give it to you locked, now you are complaining about unlocked resolution mode or you are complaining that the 60fps mode is too low in rez, just to hit some magical number......Godfall is 1350p, why can't they make it 1440p, but then it would dip and there would be another conversation....Oh they could have reduced the resolution.......It's a never ending round, people have to understand that different hardware have different constraints, you can't get perfect framerates and your ideal resolution with every game and with every developer, games have to ship sometimes, deadlines have to be met....That is why devs are so adamant that a console has the least bottlenecks as possible and is quick to triangle, the turnout in performance and development is heightened many times over and better results are more quickly realized.....That should always be the focus as opposed to depending on a feature which will take years to standardize.........For better framerates, I'm more interested in Super Resolution for consoles over VRR trying to mitigate bad performance, at least with SR my framerates can be locked even moreso and my resolution would not be as dynamic or low...it would stay high....I think that's the future for better and locked framerates across the board...