Especially games which were very prominent on consoles and ported to PC (or its PC and console versions were developed at the same time) have this issue. Because on consoles, frame rate is constant and they don't have to think about anything else.

The typical examples would be Skyrim or Dead Space 1 where physics go literally insane once you go above 60 FPS.

60/75 Hz monitors are enough playing single playergames, even if 120+ are smoother... That said, at this moment no-one (ok, exaggerating here probably) cannot compete at higher level with typical 60Hz displays, even if the game is locked at 60fps, like many fighting games are.
For multiplayer competitive games, 144+ are a must, specially FPS!!! However, there are a lot of people playing at 30fps on consoles, most of the time with crappy lag, due the TV used and the consoles them selfes (SkullGirls actually added a option to PC versions to add input lag to mach consoles) and having a lot of fun.

My point is, I like performance as much as the other guy but in the end is the FUN that matters :D

This is the main reason, why I stay away from friends/relatives, who want to show me their 4k TVs:
("You've got to see it with your own eyes!!! You'll never want to watch something on your crappy FullHD TV again!").

No thanks! I'm fine with my Full HD TV/PC Monitor...no need to spoil those for myself.

Why are there no choices worth looking at between 60Hz and 144Hz? Only old, slow models with no sychronisation.

I'd much rather 4k 60hz than FHD 240hz.

As far as gaming PC monitors are concerned, the best solution is the in-between; 1440p.

But for TVs, 4K is very much worth it.

Are you sure about this? I happened to be playing Fallout 4 when I bought my 144Hz screen this last Black Friday and from what I can tell the game limited itself to 60FPS, did you unlock it somehow?

Plenty of 75Hz monitors, look for those with freesync.

It's all a matter of perspective. Play console games on base PS4 that is locked at 30 fps and now 60 will seem butter smooth. My 10 year old monitor is a 16:10 with a native resolution of 1680x1050 and it still works well and function much better with older games since 16:10 is much closer to 4:3 than wide-screen is.

One advantage of sucking at games is that you are not really affected by framerate.

I prefer my 1920x1080, but that's simply a matter of personal preferences, I guess.
Oh, I don't doubt that.
However, I believe the available 4k content here in Germany is still somewhat limited (= mostly 4k BluRay discs).

I was recently at a colleague, who still has an old SD CRT sitting in his living room...let's just say, it was painful to watch a movie in SD, if you're used to HD.

So, again - I'm still fine with my 1920x1080 TV screens...but I also know, that's only for as long, as I'm not starting to watch movies etc. on a 4k screen/monitor, so I stay away from those. ;)

Sure, nothing comes for free. 120fps uses twice the computing resources of 60fps, 240fps twice that, 144 somewhere above the resources of 120 etc. So naturally one has to have a CPU/GPU fit to push that kind of frame rate and eventually some game is going to bottleneck and have to lower either the fps or the quality settings in the game, this isn't really a newsflash nor unexpected really.

And of course some games are written with parts of the game engine/physics or whatever locked to a fixed frame rate for consoles or bad programming choices. Skyrim/Fallout for example.

That's just life. It doesn't mean it isn't worth it though. Just lower expectations to be realistic and instead of expecting to live in a world where every game company has flawless programming and hardware has infinite resources available, just enjoy the games that do work and let you max out your setup, and enjoy those that don't to the best of their own abilities.

If one expects to play every game with maxed out settings with max frame rate etc. it's just a recipe to never enjoy yourself fully.

I've got a triplehead setup on 3 30" 16:10 displays at 2560x1600 a pop, for 7680x1600 total resolution and 60fps. If I expected every game on the market to support this crazy resolution and be a flawless experience, I'd have a lot more disappointing experiences than enjoyable ones and might as well never have bothered to buy the setup. Instead, I try to enjoy each game to the best the individual game has to offer, and if a game can actually support multi-head and I can get it to work and be a more enjoyable experience on my setup, I see it as icing on the cake.

If I had 120/144/240Hz displays I'd feel the same about that too, and enjoy games at 60fps with the best I could get out of them, and if some of the games can be maxed out to a higher frame rate and/or multihead, it'd be icing on the cake.

I guess it's not right or wrong to have certain expectations, but if one has extremely high expectations they're probably going to end up being more disappointed than actually enjoying things. Temper expectations to be "hey that's actually pretty good" instead, and when games are able to go to that next level and fully take advantage of the hardware to the max, it's a bonus experience that is even better.

But I suppose to each their own too. If one is that disappointed by this stuff, before you spend money on hardware or software, do research first to make sure it will meet any high expectations you set and don't spend the money unless it's going to do what you want, then any disappointment is avoided.

Of course, it's also ok to rant and rave as well, we all do that from time to time. :P

Maybe starting to play all games limited at 90-100 FPS would be a good compromise.

Solution: Never use such a monitor....one cannot miss what one has never experienced. ;)
-------------- If it were me i'd rather have a nicer looking(Non blurry or jagged) game than one that has a faster frame rate(above 60FPS I mean).
-------------- (To others: Link is to YT video with sound)
--------------

Eh, good graphics are good and all, but what should matter more to people is gameplay and storyline/characters.

Heck, many games from years back look less than amazing compared to today's games yet many are still as fun as ever.

===================== Sadly with each company often using weird made up terms(for their brand of anti aliasing/contrast/etc) and varying scales some of those numbers can often be misleading.

This is a nice positive sentiment, but I never said something like "I can't even play these games!" Of course I'm enjoying them for what they are. I'm just also saying there's a downside to 144hz monitors, as a lot of games don't support them well and newer games are hard to run at that framerate. Think of it as a warning to prospective buyers.


High framerate is one of those things you have to experience. If you play a game at a consistent 120+fps, like Dishonored or Outer Worlds, and then immediately play a game locked to 60, you immediately notice how much worse it "feels" to play. For some people it won't be a big deal, for others it might be a massive deal. I'm probably somewhere in the middle, but the point is it's something to consider before upgrading your monitor.