It doesn't work like that, especially with consoles. Lowering the framerate to 30fps may reduce overall visual smoothness, but it also allows for double the resources to be put towards other graphical improvements, which imo generally make far more of a difference to the overall aesthetics than the frame rate itself.
It does work like that though, the lower frame rate loses clarity in motion. You simply cannot see the details as clearly in motion as you can at 60 as you literally have half the frames.
Of course, it's entirely valid to suggest the visual boost 60fps gives isn't as important to you as other effects.
Because they probably aren't.
Well, when a game loses clarity in motion due to a lower frame-rate making the game muddier I don't see how it can be denied.
Might not matter to you, but that objectively happens in comparison to a game running at 60fps. You lose clarity, meaning you can't see the details while in motion, which is a lose to visual fidelity.
Now, to say that we are able to see more effects and better graphics at a higher framerate? Not so sure about that. I haven't seem a single person that told me that The Hobbit looked better at 48 FPS than the standard 24 FPS. Sorry, but I'm definitely sure you're the minority here concerning that, although as you've said, this is really subjective.
But for me, I'm damn sure that 60 FPS provides a better gameplay experience, not better graphics.
I don't think I am. I made a thread regarding it once and there were more people there agreeing with the idea than those against it. Of course, that's one thread, but from what I've seen in every discussion surrounding this the sides are pretty equal.
I honestly can't see how you could deny 60fps offers better visuals than 30 when, objectively, you lose detail in motion at 30 and 60+ you can see /every/ detail.
I'd get that it's not important to you if that were your argument.