>>16636267
Civ VI is still a turn-based game, and the FPS numbers are just for scrolling around the map or futzing around in menus while unit/terrain idle animations play in the background. The actual game loop is doing precisely jack and shit.
Really, there's no reason Civ ever should've switched from 2D graphics.
>>16638161
His point isn't just that a game like Civ is barely capable of breaking 100 FPS on a screaming top-end rig, but that it obviously isn't going to be able to even hit 60 on an average rig, and is completely incapable of running playably on a potato. For a fucking TBS game.
But still
>What's even the difference past 60fps?
The difference is enormous. Just buy a >20" PC CRT at a secondhand shop, or go to a brick & mortar store that stocks gaymur monitors, and check it out yourself. You'll never be able to go back.
>>16638261
LCDs can go higher than 60, but they suffer from smearing/ghosting artifacts CRTs don't, even with overdrive, and even at <60Hz, TBH. That said, motion on LCDs running at hundreds of FPS still looks FAR better than 60 FPS.
>>16638271
>All I remember is CRT's looking like ass back in the day
Most PC CRTs were shadowmask, connected via thin, low-bandwidth VGA cables, and indeed looked like absolute shit. Good CRTs were aperture grille, connected via thick, high-bandwidth cables. Some of the final gen of '00s-era CRTs were even flat-faced.