Why so surprised?? Batman AA's visuals were well received from gamers & medias alike. And there're some hard numbers to prove when it comes to character details where Gears2 used around 15K polys for its main characters, Batman would use about 20K. Here's an example of texture difference as well.
But then you also feel that Batman AA is on par with Gears 2. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that Uncharted 2 is a master of none when basically it does things better than most if not all of the console games out there, KZ2 has the edge in terms of the number of possible light sources but Uncharted 2 has better and more realistic lighting quality (sky light as well as objects that give off light such as flames) due to HDR, and better shadowing quality than KZ2, and GOW3 doesn't even have self-shadowing for the majority of the enemies presented on screen and basically it's limiting the self-shadowing by the angle the light is being cast because the camera is fixed on a rail. It's not like the other two teams aren't sharing the Edge tools developed at Naughty Dog.
- overall texture quality is significantly better in Gears 2, no contest at all. U2's texture fidelity is even lesser than what's seen in U1.
- use of motion blur is just better in KZ2, mostly due to its art direction. U2 takes more hit from blur caused by motion blur because U2 takes its strength from image clarity.
- use of shadow is a lot better in KZ2, with far more shadow casting lights.
- character models are better in RE5, it even used real time cut scene where U2 did mostly with movies
- I've seen better HDR lighting in games like GT5 or Halo 3
- explosions don't even come close to what's seen in KZ2
- use of AA is not the best with lots of visible aliasings
- animation is a lot better in KZ2
There're more, but let me just end it here. It does everything good, but nothing stands out. I find KZ2 or GOW3's visual more impressive, because it does what it does the best in its own distinct style.