Honestly, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment (though I don't think the tone is likely to win people over). Internet debate doesn't do shades of grey (because it's more about one-upmanship than anything else), but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. Good opinions are about 90% objective in that they make logical, contextual deductions from fact (in much the same way as theory and observation work in science) and shitty opinions are about 90% subjective in that they beg and borrow evidence as necessary to substantiate a subjective persuasion (as politicians do with statistics).
Any good review should be mostly objective (at least in substance) and the subjective should either be caveated (mileage may vary, newcomers may be put off, etc.) or at least be in context (compared with prior entries, in a crowded genre, etc.). I think most sensible people know this and it shouldn't need spelling out, but being that reductionism is the first recourse of people desperate to win an argument on the internet, it often feels necessary.
Anyway, I'm waffling... everyone can go back to talking about biomes now.
It's hard to say, but I'd imagine most last gen games that already run 4K/60 on current gen could do a 1080/120 mode with the proper optimisations. It's just hard to tell because the market for open world games isn't generally crying out for those modes so developers aren't doing them. It's mostly fast-paced competitive shooters like Call of Duty and DOOM Eternal. Halo Infinite's campaign is occupying a slightly weird space in being a fast-paced open world shooter. Far Cry 6 is a good shout and probably would be possible with same sort of compromises we see in Halo, but clearly they didn't see a reason to try (probably because they put visuals ahead of performance).