I'm getting the impression that many people posting here have not actually read this thread. The debate as to whether 2D is better than 3D is sort of like the debate between whether C++ is better than objective C or standard C. Or whether assembly should be used for inner loops. The only people qualified to answer those questions are actual programmers. In the case of the 2D vs 3D debate the only people qualified to answer are digital artists. People with actual experience working on 2D sprites and 3D polygon models. It's a behind the scenes question. Good game artists can make either look good.
It's true that when 3D first started to replace 2D the art looked terrible, but digital artists have now learned from those mistakes and are capable of making 3D look just as good
. 3D models can be incredibly detailed and look just as good as a detailed drawing by a talented traditional artist. Using applications like Mudbox and Zbrush it is possible to paint detailed 2D textures with bump mapping onto 3D models. I fail to understand why some of you are convinced that only 2D art can look good. There are valid reasons for preferring 2D to 3D but unless you are an artist you really are not qualified to say anything about it. At least one person with real experience creating game art has posted in this thread and said that high resolution 2D sprites would be a lot more work than 3D models. That means it will be more expensive.
Is it the Facebook influence that makes people want to post to a discussion without reading any of it first as if your opinions are the only ones that could possibly be of any importance?