Well, our game is kind of an RTS (although the strategy isn't very advanced). We're doing 2D because our huge maps and hundreds of individual buildings, people, and vehicles onscreen at once just aren't possible for us to do in 3D. I don't think anyone could do it without a huge team and huge budget, and video cards that could handle all that only recently came into existence. Even then, you'd have to severely restrict the camera. And only people with the highest-end gaming systems could run it. Although our game engine "thinks" in 3D -- the game physics are 3D, we have 3D collision detection, etc., I don't like the look of 3D, so our assets are modeled in 3D and rendered as 2D sprites.
And it looks fantastic. I love the way that 2d games can be so intricately detailed, and so even looking. There is no 2d-vs-3d any more. Or at least, there shouldn't be. Each has its own style. Both can look great in the right hands. And the right hands are equally hard to come by.
I cannot do anything but strongly AGREE. 3D is always a bit artificial for me (even nowadays), but it gives great help in motion and animation when you look at it from a bit of a distance. I had never liked 3D RTS-s until I've seen Age of Mythology. When the Cyclops just threw a normal hoplite away..., and it looked GREAT. The animations were smoother and there would be such effects those harder (or impossible) to reproduce in 2D. On the other side I like 2D more ( ), and I am really upset when I see 3D renders as, for example, character portraits. I think it will be far from now or never when a 3D render will beat a 2D painting... when it comes to details and natural outlook. (I could only tolerate 3D character portraits in Dark Omen, where they were MOVED as they yell and shout: "ATTACK!" )
I love both 2D and 3D, and at my day job (pro game dev) I get to do both. 3D in-game stuff, and 2D menu-screen-portraits, concept art, and small images for icons, etc. My puzzle game is 3D in order to let the character been seen vividly, but I have desires to do 2D work with platformers or something similar. Not sure. They'll be plenty of 2D in the presentation, as that's something I love doing. I agree with Anthony - there is no '2D vs 3D' anymore.
You can't honestly say that Rise of Legends looks significantly worse than a 2D RTS with prerendered graphics... I'm not arguing the kind of hardware you need to run this game, although I wouldn't be surprised if by the time the game is released you can buy a budget machine capable of running it, but when it comes to pure visual quality, its very good. I just don't think the 2D is better for RTS games argument holds anymore.
These days you can`t agree with the idea that 2D in strategy games CAN look better than 3D. These days are looooong over. These screenshots prove it: http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/paraworld/404180/ http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/paraworld/404179/ http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/paraworld/404178/ http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/paraworld/404177/ Just look at them. They`re already artistic in their nature. You can`t say they`re just 3D. They`re beatiful. You could hang them on your wall as a picture. I`d go even as far as saying that some prerendered 2D adventures do not have such atmosphere as above screenshots. Sure it won`t run on 1GHz & GF3, but it does look way better than 2D games ever did.