What you're saying may be correct for a few games but all the new titles usually tend to completely maxing out the newest hardware.
But then again, if you hit 60fps in a game under ALL circumstances (numbers of enemies, big maps etc.) you might as well just framelock the game as everything beyond that is literally waste of electricity as the human eye can only interpret about 30fps - but that is not a fixed number as the human eye doesn't see in frames (chemical reactions based on stimuli). So let's give an additional buffer of another 30fps and you should be fine.
At least you don't need 1295 frames per second and many games use framelocks to avoid exactly that. Beyond 60frames there is a lot you can improve - but the framerate is not important - the human eye wouldn't be able to see it at all.
Also a lot of games these days are multiplatform titles and thus inherit the 60frames lock of their console brothers and sisters.
Also please keep in mind that from 60fps on the limiting factor in gaming is not the display but actually mouse- and inputlag, the response time of your display and also in online gaming your ping. I have played fast paced shooters for a long long time, including quake 3 arena (rocket arena to be precise) and others. While there is a myth of the more FPS the better there is much more to it - e.g. the criteria mentioned above.
That said let me say something regarding the video you posted. I had to search because your link wasn't working (for me at least) but I found it. The guy in that video is pretty famous for pretending to be an expert - which he isn't. He messed up on a lot of occasions and I also disagree with his explanation here. In fact he messed up once again.
The 3:2 pulldown has a completely different origin. It's necessary to convert cinema material to the american television standard NTSC. Basically converting from 24 frames to 29,97 NTSC frames and preparing them for the line scan CRT screens of the past.
The problem is that this can't even be done on plasma, lcd and even modern 100hz CRT screens anymore as they use progressive images and can't display half images at all.
That said the method he eventually wanted to talk about is the 2:2 pull down.
That aside there is some truth to it. However, it's questionable at the core. The reason is simple: first of all you would have to raise the question of compatibility. For example PAL vs NTSC - pal uses 25 frames... and many sources are NTSC and PAL. Also keep in mind that only a fraction of the globe, literally only US, Mexico and Canada uses NTSC. Also there is SECAM although it dies out...
The fundamental issue however is that you don't need 120 hz
All you need is a display that has a 24p mode. In other words: it SLOWS itself down to 24frames per second instead of 60 or even more. And honestly, you won't see any difference. The movie just can't get faster.
Further 3D would be basically pointless as you'd require 240 instead of 120hz. Otherwise you'd run into the same problem once again.
So, you see? There is more behind the curtain. Sadly it's really just a marketing gag until now.
- no value in gaming
- no value in 24p mode either as even 60hz displays can display that just fine
- inherits the "theoretical" (because you don't need to swap images with 60hz) problems of 60hz screens combined with the real problems of older CRT screens when in 3D mode
Also keep in mind that there are no IPS 120hz panels out there (at least non that I know of) so far.
So what's better then? A fake 120hz with mediocre colors or a great panel with awesome colors? I'm sold on the latter to be honest.
Sorry for the lenghty post but it's very hard to explain the technical issues behind all this 120hz fuzz.