Well, perhaps you shouldn't say "everyone".

To be clear: I'm not over-focused on FPS, and I definitely have always disliked the general attitudes concerning FPS. Most often, that's all you hear, is a number (sometimes a few numbers, ie MIN/MAX/AVG) and to be accurate it really doesn't say a lot about ideal performance to me. I have always said I'd rather get 30-40 FPS steady than I would have a huge FPS number that cannot be maintained and applies maybe 5% of the time. For most people, a consistent frame rate and consistent frame distribution will yield the best video presentation. Even fairly high average FPS can still have massive stutter of > .25 or .5 seconds.

Here's an example:

FPS Time
120 1s
119 2s
120
120
121
118
121
120
20 < stutter
120
119
120
122
121
118
121
120

Average FPS = 114.12; fairly high. But during this relatively small amount of time (~16 seconds) the simple FPS practically grinds to a halt during a significant drop at the 8 second point. And this is actually only one way that frames can be poorly distributed.

What makes a motion picture appear smooth is the fact that the images occur at exactly the same frame rate, all the time. And it's much less than 120 FPS, or even 60. Yet it looks plenty smooth. The reason our perception of motion is smooth is because every image our eye sees is "updated" at exactly the same rate as every other image. No gaps, no drops, no stutters - and even at 35 frames, its smooth. (And "motion blur" has nothing to do with why, it's actually an undesired effect and lot of effort has been put into getting rid of it - that wouldn't happen if it were a good thing). TV and movies have been this way, and have remained unchanged since decades before anyone even thought of the term 'motion blur'.

I've often wondered how FPS snobs can possibly stand to watch TV or movies, because - like it or not - TV and movies are still recorded at 24 FPS (or is it 29.97...anyhow, it's not more than half of 60 and far less than any 120...). If these people can't stand a frame rate dropping below 100FPS without noticing, how is it their heads don't explode when confronted with 24 measly frames a second? You'd think they'd puke, like when someone shines their phone's stupid-bright LED "flashlight" right at your eyes...

Simply saying something like "I get 120+ FPS" is nothing more than internet forum bragging, and it's just as useless as it sounds. People who do that are really showing exactly how knowledgeable they are (not). What those people want is called "bragging rights". Most respectable reviewers and measurements have, for a long while now, considered several other factors beyond a simple raw (even average) frame rate.

What matters is how evenly the frames are spaced out, and how consistently they remain evenly spaced out...neither of which a simple FPS figure alone can account for.

My $.02 (supported by a few documented facts, of course) FWIW