To add, when it comes to video games sometimes people go "baww but 24 fps is enough for film". However, pause a film and you'll see a lot of smearing, not unlike cartoon animation frames I suppose, but in a video game every frame is discrete so low framerate becomes visually a lot more apparent.

I think it was The Hobbit that had a 60 fps version, and people just... weren't having it. It's technologically superior I'm sure (as would higher frame rates be), but it just becomes too "real" then. IIRC they also had to really update their make-up game because on higher frame rates and / or resolutions people can see everything.

Mind you, watching older TV shows nowadays is interesting; I think they were able to scan the original film for e.g. the X Files and make a HD or 4K version of it, and unlike back in the day, nowadays you can make out all the fine details of the actor's skin and the like. Part high definition, part watching it on a 4K screen instead of a CRT TV.

Regarding your first paragraph, the other thing worth mentioning is that in addition to smear/motion blur in film, it's also a passive medium. Video games are interactive. You're responding to and making decisions based on what you're seeing.

In a FPS, trying to track movement at only 24 fps is pretty much impossible unless your target's movement is entirely predictable.

In a flight simulator, trying to land a plane in gusty weather conditions is a lot harder with only 24 fps.

Lower framerates don't just make motion choppy, it increases latency. At 24 fps, any change in movement could be up to 42 ms behind. At 120 fps, that's down to 8.3 ms. And those numbers assume that you can notice the difference in only a single frame.

I'm convinced that people claiming 24 fps is fine for games just because it's fine for film don't actually play games. At least, nothing that requires quick reaction times.