I vote no because not everyone can run 120/unlocked (me Kappa) I can however do 60, kinda. It would 100% put those with a better PC in the lead for no skill reason, just better hardware (kinda like RTA timing but not as extreme) But if the people vote, I shall agree.
It's one thing to have to spend $50 to get a faster version of a game, it's a whole different thing to have to spend $1000+ to get a PC that can compete with other peoples. If someone were to have a significantly worse run than someone else as far as actual gameplay and still beat them due to having an op PC, they might have "won" but did they really win? No, nor would they deserve to win.
With that said, it's still very true that it's basically impossible to monitor if people are actually staying within 60fps so as much as I hate to say it, it basically has to be legal unless we want to risk accidentally rejecting legitimate runs.
So I conclude by saying yes, make it legal but I feel we should very seriously consider making it a separate category or drop down for PC like JC said. To be brutally honest about my opinion, if it is not separate from 30/60 it will be the death of this game on PC because excellence and skill will not necessarily be required to have a WR with unlocked fps. I am not trying to say that anybody here who is running the game is unskilled by saying that, I'm just saying that even an unskilled person can get an amazing time if they have a stupidly powerful PC.
This one is a no for me. There is an enormous competitive difference between having a software advantage (regional cart or version) and having a hardware advantage, one that goes beyond just "unfairness."
If we take Auddy's examples as a reference, the Japanese SM64 cart is indeed faster. But everyone who runs SM64, regardless of region, is running it on an N64 console or an emulator which has been rigorously tested to insure that it does not provide an advantage. In particular, this means that the emulator will not run faster than an N64 console. The same goes for RE4: different copies of the game have their own quirks which change the speed, but everyone is running the game on a console or PC with a locked framerate. In other words, in those games you mentioned, everyone is still on even footing when it comes to hardware.
These examples are, in fact, entirely irrelevant to the case of RE5. Regardless of which version you are running, if you have a beefier PC, you WILL go faster if your framerate is uncapped.
Imagine that I wanted to speedrun Jazz Jackrabbit for DOS on my modern tower, and cranked up my DOSBox speed to 300,000 cycles per second, ran the game at 100x its intended speed and beat the game in 45 seconds. Would you say that I deserved the world record for that game?
In a less extreme case, this is what you are proposing for RE5. Fallout 4 has a similar issue with uncapped framerates and their official rules now reflect this, placing a hard limit at 60fps. For those who were around for Half-Life 1's speedrunning heyday you will remember the bunnyhopping fps exploit, and their board caps framerate at 100 for this reason.
I challenge anyone to find a board for an active game where speed is tied to framerate that does NOT explicitly limit fps. There's a reason no other boards allow it: it's downright scummy. To me this thread reads like a bunch of runners who know they have some heavy hardware and are trying to price out as much competition as they can.
If policing the runs is a problem, then bite the bullet and make it a rule that coop runs require both perspectives with FPS on screen at all times. The argument that "people aren't using the fps counter" is entirely invalid. As a mod you must reject runs that go against the rules. The games mentioned above with framerate requirements have no problem enforcing their rules. I find the mixed rhetoric, wherein you want to include people who cannot afford decent recording software (let alone a strong PC) while also forcing them out of competition with expensive uncapped PC rigs, to be tasteless and hypocritical.
In the end it comes down to the fact that the best RE5 player in the world should be able to come to our community and compete at the highest level with as few barriers to entry as possible. You don't build a healthy community by topping the charts with times unattainable to those without $3000 PC's. That's just this runner's opinion. I hope that the powers that be end up making the right decision.
EDIT: While I disagree with TheCarpenter on whether or not uncapped should be permitted, he is indeed right that if uncapped framerate is allowed this game will not only be dead on PC, it will be made an example of. So if you want to sacrifice this game to make sure that all games of this nature have capped framerates, that's up to you.
I'd say 'No', personnally, BUT it is true that your arguments are correct.
It might be difficult to check every runs, moreover if some co-op runs are not recorded by both players. Just add a rule so that PC players must record their runs, and both teammates must do it for Co-op. It's free, and if you use Shadowplay for example, it shouldn't impact the framerate.
Also, I don't think it could be good to open a distinct 30/60 fps category. You can just leave the leaderboards like that, and add all the possible variables.;
