Assuming you can generate 24fps of "movie quality perfect images", but you can't.

Let's take motion blur as an example: It's a very expensive to do it as a real-time VFX - so we cheat and approximate it - that doesn't that look good most of the time - because we often have to cut too many corners and end up with a poor approximation.

You're generating very slow images that a computer believes is a facsimile of reality that, unfortunately, don't represent motion blur very well, so they might be "24fps", but they look wrong compared to reality, and you probably can't conscientiously tell what is wrong, just that something seems to be sightly off.

So it's easier instead to attack the problem from the other side, and generate (or frame generate, that's a thing now) and show 480fps "crisp images" and make human persistence of vision do actual motion blur for you.

Even when viewing a movie instead of playing a game there is a huge difference between the blurry mess that fills the screen every time there is motion at 24 FPS vs. the sharper details of higher framerates.

The crazy thing is people are actually trained to hate it. When you see smooth motion your brain goes "oh no, this is some cheaply shot camcorder shit, not a quality movie" even though what is really happening is the picture looks better than you expect.

There is a HUGE difference between 30fps and 60fps games. Very noticable. I got used to 60fps so much, that I don't even touch 30fps anymore.

It's true that your eyes(or brain?) can get used to the 30fps after some time. But if you compare them side by side...

Ignoring all of the scientific evidence otherwise, there is not a chance you're actually parroting this nonsense without actually noticing a rather substantial difference when viewing something (say a movie) at 30fps versus 60+fps. It's literally night and day. Me and a few coworkers noticed the difference between 60 and 120 when upgrading phones recently, and that difference is much more nuanced than the difference between 30 and 60.