I watched several 60fps movies and never experienced that, but recently I watched a couple of movies that had that sort of home video feel to it too and I wasn't quite sure what the deal was. I'm not convinced it is entirely due to them being 60FPS as I've seen various movies in 60FPS that didn't have that problem, but I think it may be a combination of factors together including 60FPS that contribute to it. Notably the movie Glass just didn't sit right with me, and a few others that slip my mind.

It'd be interesting to see if down converting them to 30FPS or 24FPS would have any effect on this though. I think I may do that next time just for the experiment. I've watched other 60FPS movies since then too though that didn't have the "home video" feel problem to them.

Either way it's rather strange.

I really don't know, I haven't played Doom in more than 20 years. And in the era of 486 and Pentium, I don't think fast computers or high FPS was something common, like it is today.

I don't remember where I've read this, but apparently in order to make 24fps feel acceptable to us, you have to use a sort of motion blur. Movies filmed at 48/60fps either use the same exact motion blur, or don't use motion blur at all. This is the problem why some films don't feel right.
In order to make 60fps viewing experiences flow seamless, you need to use a very specific form of motion blur, and especially for the early adopters movie makers, this wasn't available.

If you mean (1993), yes. It also did not have mouselook (you could *move* left/right/forward/back with the mouse, but not use it for turning around). Playing with keyboard makes the latency feel a little less jarring. Also, the monsters in that game move really slow and their animation is far slower than 35fps..

Only if there's no animation to speak of. All of the newer Civs, Age of Wonders 3, etc. are all nicer to play at 60fps.

One thing is that it depends somewhat on what you're used to. If all you ever played was 30fps, it can seem smooth. But if you then spend a significant amount of time with 60fps, going back to 30fps seems jittery. I don't currently have a monitor that goes past 60Hz, but when I had a CRT monitor, it could run lower resolutions (<1024x768) at 120Hz. I played Quake 2 like that for a while, and it was really slick. Going back to 60fps was noticeably less smooth, until I eventually got used to it again.

Note the requirement for VR to be >100Hz. Even if you think you can't really see a difference, your brain notices.

That is incorrect. You could look left and right with mouse (but not up or down - that did move the character). You could also do that in Wolf3D.

I guess my memory is failing. Maybe there was a strafe button?

There was a strafe modifier key. I'm not sure if you could configure the mouse to move left/right instead of aim by default.

It's a very subjective thing that differs from one game and one person to the next. As others have said above 30fps vs 60fps in a point & click adventure or old turn based RTS with fixed animation rates is different from an FPS. Some game engines, eg, Adventure Game Studio are locked to 40fps with most people not really noticing it vs the style of play.

Personally, I can see the difference between 144fps vs 60fps but it's far less of a jump compared to 60fps vs 30fps, and I'd rather aim for a stable, fluid, fixed 60fps than a "144fps experience" that constantly fluctuates between 60-150fps. The higher you go, the harder it is to maintain a fixed min frame rate unless you only buy top-end hardware (for which the newest games will lower again often faster than they have any visual improvements to justify it), and I'm long done with that rat-race.

That stuff is partly aimed at super-competitive MP shooters like Fortnite, Overwatch, etc, to minimise latency and part "gamer" marketing, ie, "buy our super-leet 240Hz monitor over their 144Hz monitor" for the same reason you 'need' a $499 "Gamer Chair" and 500x RGB LED's in your case. That makes you a "Real Gamer (tm"). ;-)

A lot of that is habituation, ie, people are simply used to seeing 24fps for decades then "surprised" for the first time. If 60fps movies become standard, the opposite will happen and people will become habituated to that and see 24fps as either stuttery (or better notice the blurred motion that comes with it). Same is true of games, 240Hz vs 144Hz may be "hardcore shooter" territory, but once you're used to 60fps, it's hard to go back to 30fps even in non-action centric games. Eg, even isometric RPG's like Dragon Age / Divinity Original Sin look much smoother when moving / panning the camera across the screen.

Original Doom (1993 for MS-DOS) has a 35fps cap but as others mentioned it also lacked mouse-look which hid a lot of the problems. GZDoom removes this cap, better interpolate monster movement and moving / turning / aiming with a mouse very definitely plays much better overall at 60fps.

Really you can test 30 vs 60fps in a lot of your own games yourself by capping fps to 30 then swapping back to 60. You can either do this in your GPU driver (eg, for nVidia, there's an "adaptive (half refresh rate)" option that limits it to half of your monitors option. Alternatively, utilities like MSI Afterburner have frame-rate limiters built in.

That's not entirely correct, as far as I know. Motion blur in movies is a result of the filming process itself, and not something that has to be added in a special way. In a film shot in 24 frames per second, each individual frame took 1/24 of a second to film, and any motion occuring during this short time is blurred. That means there are no or almost no gaps in between frames (if every single frame would only show one exact moment in time, there would be a 1/24 second gap in between them), which results in a fluid perception of the motion.

In games, every frame IS a single moment in time, so there is no motion blur by default, which means lower frame rates look much less fluid than the same rates in movies.

Now, if a film is shot in 48 frames or more, each frame covers a shorter time, so there is less motion blur in them. However, if this film is later shown in only 24 frames, every second frame is removed, so now there suddenly are gaps in between them, which makes them appear less fluid than a film shot in 24 frames in the first place. I don't know if they now use techniques to blend two frames into one when they do this, but when 48 frames were new, this was definitely a problem.

Still, 48 frames looks different than 24 frames no matter what, and that's what gives the impression that they look strange, even though they should look more realistic. I have noticed a similar issue with dialogues... in Germany, we are used to seeing dubbed versions of movies shot in different languages, and that has had an influence on what I think a movie should sound like in German. That means, if I see a movie that is actually shot in German, it somehow feels more "acted" than dubbed ones, even though they should sound more realistic (another example is things like lens flares in games in order to make them more realistic, while they actually become more cinematic, because, surprise, reality doesn't have lens flares ;) ).

I believe some kinds of laser eye surgery do result in reality having lens flares. ;) Motion blur with film only helps with some kinds of motion...the other day I was watching a scene in a show where the camera was slowly panning, and it was unpleasantly juddery due to being 24fps. Slow pans always look bad on film, but this one stood out more than usual for some reason; maybe the contrast.

Doom 3 (capped at 60fps) works fine at 60hz but with stutters, so 120hz are recommended;

Doom 1/2 (capped at 35fps) works fine only with 70hz and 144hz, not with 60hz and 120hz

same for Quake1 that has 72fps

I understand that high framerates can be preferable for people who like playing online competitive multiplayer, but...
... here comes the bullshit:

Games that have issues (stutters) unless you play them on a 120 Hz monitor?! RIGHT!

I've even played this specific example. Doom 3 plays perfectly smooth on any regular (60 Hz) monitor.

Doom 3 actually has some issues. I don't know if they're system specific or what, but it certainly stuttered like hell when I first played it a couple years ago. Upon Googling, I found out that it's not just me. There are workarounds though.