What you say is true. People should take a look at the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. The number of fps needed to provide a smooth video depends on the variation of the scene, as it happens with the number of samples in high frequency signals or low frequency signals. In a first person shooter or a driving game you need more frames per second than in a board game or a strategy game, as the items move slower.

This lack of samples is one type of aliasing, as it happens sometimes when you see cycling or any motor racing in tv, and sometimes the tyres seem to turn backwards. That's because you need a much higher number of frames to see the real movement of the tyre, and not an unreal aproximation due to a low number of samples.

higher framerate as long as it is constant is better and more natural looking, even if a casual observer may not be able to recognise consciously the difference tests have shown that many people can percieve single frames in the hundreds of frames per seccond range. And no sane person would ever say that a game running at 60fps looks anything but better/smoother than 30fps. Real life is > 1 Tredecillion "frames" per seccond after all (basically the time it takes for light to travel the shortest mesurable distance in a vacuum which is less than an attom across if I remember correctly).

yes 60fps > 30 fps in both look and feel.

but i would say many 30 fps games look and feel better than many 60 fps, i would also say a rock solid 30 fps game is better than a 60 fps games that has screen tear and dropped frames.

for example Uncharted is locke 30 fps, so its a very smooth experience, and through the clever use of motion blur, its very hard to tell it is a 30 fps game, becuase it plays so smoothly, and the motion blur gives the illusion of higher fps. 

call of duty on the other hand, while mostly smooth, due to its 60 fps target, drops frames, and has torn frames

Rage looks great in the Wasteland but when I got to the ruined city something went very wrong, the game went from beautful at a distance to blurry and ugly

I find lack of plot, absolutely no connection to protagonist dissapointing.
A good shooting game that makes you yawn from boredom.
IMHO - 6/10 or less.

My impression too. I played this week the ps3 version and, despite being allegedly the worst, it looks pretty good. The framerate was solid for most part and the level of detail in the textures was very impressive. However, as much as I wanted to like Rage, I was very disappointed. The artistic direction is rather weak and the level design (for my limited point of view - I played only for a couple of hours) was pretty bad. Unless I played a selection of the weakest parts of the game, it seems that many reviewers significantly overrated it.

From reviews the start of the game is by far the weakest, the first 3-4 hours is a streatched out tutorial basically but later on when you get more weapons it becomes a lot more fun.