It's my general philosophy that putting extra love into each of 30 (or 25!) frames is a more worthy pursuit than making sacrifices to achieve 60 or more. As a last analog, the Nintendo Wii is 480p. (480p!) There are some damn nice looking Wii games out there -- they tend use high-quality antialiasing, as compared to 1080p with jagged edges and pixel sparkle as seen in a baffling proportion of high-profile 360 games. Crisper is not always better.
Back when I played games on shitboxes, I'd crank the settings (minus AA/AF) up to max, even if it led to 12 FPS. Agreed that the beauty of images is more important than framerate, but frame limiting around 30 FPS is only appropriate on consoles, where min and max framerates for a game are known. Practically all games will still be more pleasant at a higher framerate.
As for Wii games, I think it has little to do with antialiasing. Games with timeless aesthetics look better at 1080p with no AA than at 480p with 16x MSAA. As resolution increases, the need for AA diminishes, and beyond 1080p hardly any in-game images have aliasing so severe as to pull you out of the game (of course 360 games seldom render at anything close to 1080p).
Conversely, no AA could even begin to redeem the modern big-name game aesthetic. When legions of artists max out detail in every single laboriously produced texture and model, the result is a screen saturated in localized nuance, but with no bold substance. Also, everything must be gritty, grimy, dirty, or broken, because otherwise, an opportunity for detail is lost. Everything melds together to a grainy gruel. Just look at this shit
BTW what do you mean by 'pixel sparkle'?