Jamsers

TLDR, assuming adaptive sync with LFC: A good floor for "smooth enough, I guess" is 50 FPS. But if you want the "genuinely smooth" feeling? 70 FPS is ideal. A good "endgame" target is 200 FPS. But the more FPS you can get, the better - there's no "human eye can't percieve above x FPS" - the limits for human perception are so high it's irrelevant to any discussions about FPS.

Gaming has, for as long as we can remember, aimed for the 60 FPS mark as the target. But we know that number isn't based on any biological observation or objective limit but rather is borne out of convenience, since most displays, TVs and monitors alike, maxed out at 60 hz. Not the mention the infeasibility of presenting at arbitrary sub native refresh rates on fixed refresh rate displays.

However, with the advent of cheap high refresh rate monitors (you can get a 144hz Freesync monitor for like $100 at this point) and TVs, and adaptive sync technologies that make it so that sub native refresh rates present just as perfe

Jamsers

The real "tough pill to swallow" is that games are media and media culture is inherently about picking a minuscule number of winners, based on merit but also a huge amount of randomness. People don't seek out media based on pure merit, they seek out media that other people also like so they can share it together. It will always coalesce around a small number of lucky winners.

Sane people don't take up oil painting or singing or writing and expect to bring in enough patrons to fund it as their career. They might hope for that, but they know how slim the chances are, and they do it for the love of their art. Gamedev, I think being based on an engineering discipline and bringing in people with that mindset, is often seen as something different, where if you just do all the right things you'll eventually find success. It's not.

I think more game devs need to be content making something that is for them and their own sense of purpose, regardless of whether they ever find validation outside of it. Making a ga