It may not be that simple. In no way to slight Insomniac, but given the same game design parameters could they make a game that visually matches/surpasses MW2 at a stable 60Hz?
IW talked a bit about MW1 when it came out, about how they actually dropped poly counts and shifted decidely toward simple normal maps (and weren't aggressively persueing some of the newer techniques as the core emphasis of the engine). While IW used a number of post processing effects and filters, the game (as you noted in another thread) really pushed more well understood techniques with strong developer pipelines. Where MW really excels is they had strong art direction and cohesion and were able to put and end product on screen that was more than the sum of its parts. It isn't just, "Oh, look, the underside of the jeep has AO!"
I think MW is a more subtle example; I think Team Fortress 2 is the best example this generation. The renderer is dog old in most ways. Geometry is simple, characters aren't very high in regards to poly or texture detail, particles are simple, shaders aren't very complex, etc. TF2 ran a LOT better on my old PC GPU than MW1. Yet TF2 routinely is praised for the visuals. The simple reason why is the game has a great and distinctive look that matches the gameplay perfectly. Valve's documentaries on the art process and how it motivated technological decisions is absolutely fascinating.
I am not sure many companies have matured to that level--and even fewer who have matured to that level across projects on a consistent basis. This is why I think some companies fizzle graphically: They hit a sweet spot where the art matched with their technology and in many ways these companies are more technologically oriented. But that is a tough edged sword to walk.
If your art designs draw more heavily on technology (as realistic based games tend to) to emphasize and distinguish the product I think your window is smaller.
If you gave the MW engine to most developers with the same budgets and criteria I don't think most game settings and developer art direction would match what IW pulled off with MW1. It isn't a technology issue, but a design one. I think this is where UC2 is really, really amazing. Seeing how they push their technology and were able to conceive contexts that push right up to those boundaries is amazing. When you have art folks working that cohesively with your tech people like that it is
So the 30Hz issue, I think, is a way to be competitive where they think their design process takes them. MW2 @ 60Hz proves that 30Hz isn't the end-all-be-all for awesome graphics.
But how many companies have what it takes to pull off great graphics at 60Hz? The compromises most make--and the inability to artistically adjust--really make this hard.
And this isn't a criticism toward Insomniac, only an observation that even at 30Hz a lot of games make concessions that are bad for their design. e.g. Halo 3 (a game I like) I think made a huge mistake having HUGE open areas and HUGE forerunner objects with flat sides and clean edges and not using texture filtering. It really was a bad compromise IMO.
For whatever reason it seems some companies (luckily?) seem to make better compromises. It is hard with huge teams, for sure. The guys who plot the technology and art for a project really are visionaries if you ask me. The window between having AF, and not, is small percentage of overall performance, and missing the boat is pretty small. Making the wrong bet in big things can be disasterous--was IW crazy for focusing on normal maps over newer techniques and aiming for 60Hz? Sounds like a recipe for an antiquated engine. But somehow they overcame the 60Hz and "inferior tech" and put up a compelling visual package. Pretty gutsy call!
