Another, maybe easier to parse, way to say what you mean is: Spatial Resolution and Temporal Resolution, the former for image quality and the latter for higher framerates.
Personally I prefer higher spatial resolution over temporal, as long as the frames are paced correctly and input lag isn't comically high (I was playing the remaster of NFS: Hot Pursuit the other day and whatever sync solution they are using is insane, the input lag at 30fps I would say is unplayable considering its a racing game). Often 30fps is fine for me and I certainly don't care about framerates over 60fps except in really specific cases (hyper fast paced games with low detail art styles/graphics, eg Horizon Chase Turbo), so if the framerate is locked to 60fps and paced properly then atp I would 99.99% of the time choose higher image quality instead of going over 60fps.
I game on a really high contrast 65" TV that gives an HDR experience thats top 10 in the world for all TVs so it makes a huge difference to have higher resolution/image quality for me personally. The TV also naturally blurs the frames almost perfectly (the 80% pixel response time is 31ms, very close to the frametime of a frame at 30fps), so the issues sample and hold type displays have that would make you want a higher framerate are lessened as best they can be.
I also spend a lot of my time in games looking at stuff with a still or near still frame, so thats a huge factor for me. I don't ever play MP games so input lag advantage considerations are not relevant.
I don't think resolution is really what we're discussing here. It's the ability for the eye to read the environment quickly and with relative ease. Obviously both types benefit from good resolution and frame rates.
Uhh okay then, I didn't understand your question at all, nvm then ha.