You do know humans can't really tell the difference between 200fps and say 120fps don't you? Probably down to 60fps if not less actually.
Plus...
http://pastebin.com/efLwB7tK
I agree that above 60FPS is pointless and the fact that the op is playing MW2 with 200FPS suggests to me that his is playing with V-sync off which means that he is putting up with screen tearing. ( a real visual impairment that a PC gamer shouldn't be putting up with, especially not if he can run a game at 200FPS).
However, for 3D games, 30FPS falls way short of being top quality and I for one think there is a massive difference between a game running at 60FPS and 30FPS. Aside from aesthetic values, playing games at 30FPS will result in strain problems whereas 60FPS is totally seamless.
With the notable exception of COD, all console shooters run at <30FPS, often with a lack of V-sync and hence screen tearing when the going gets too tough for the GPU. Any console gamer will attest to how smooth COD is when compared with its compettitors proving that EVERYONE notices the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second. Of course, COD acheives a solid 60FPS on the consoles by running at a sub 720p resolution........but mostly console gamers are retards and dont notice/care.