2D games are usually more detailed than their 3D counterpart.
I was thinking a long time about why I prefer 2D games to 3D ones, at least in terms of visuals. The conclusion I reached is that it's because technological limitations you get to see in graphics. Models are made from low-poly meshes, and you can (still) see the straight edges where you know they should be curved. Textures are too low-detail; stand next to a wall or close to any entity in a 3D game and you'll always see the texture upscaling, lack of detail.
Most of 3D games try to go for "realistic" visuals, but they never cross the uncanny valley. 2D games seem to look prettier to me because they don't set up expectations - so as long as they have consistent art style, the brain doesn't complain much. Moreover, in 2D productions artists usually have full control of every pixel displayed on screen, so the art can be (and usually is) very detailed. The limits that 2D environment places are more strict than limits of available technology, so your experience doesn't get ruined by jagged edges and texture upscaling.
That's why I still like the original StarCraft more than StarCraft 2 and think that introducing 3D graphics was a bad decision - the original art style looked serious, dark, had an atmosphere. SC2's style is dominated by clunky 3D models which look more like child's toys than serious hardware. But then again maybe this was made on purpose - the plot of SC2 seems about as serious as the graphics, which is not at all.
I was thinking a long time about why I prefer 2D games to 3D ones, at least in terms of visuals. The conclusion I reached is that it's because technological limitations you get to see in graphics. Models are made from low-poly meshes, and you can (still) see the straight edges where you know they should be curved. Textures are too low-detail; stand next to a wall or close to any entity in a 3D game and you'll always see the texture upscaling, lack of detail.
Most of 3D games try to go for "realistic" visuals, but they never cross the uncanny valley. 2D games seem to look prettier to me because they don't set up expectations - so as long as they have consistent art style, the brain doesn't complain much. Moreover, in 2D productions artists usually have full control of every pixel displayed on screen, so the art can be (and usually is) very detailed. The limits that 2D environment places are more strict than limits of available technology, so your experience doesn't get ruined by jagged edges and texture upscaling.
That's why I still like the original StarCraft more than StarCraft 2 and think that introducing 3D graphics was a bad decision - the original art style looked serious, dark, had an atmosphere. SC2's style is dominated by clunky 3D models which look more like child's toys than serious hardware. But then again maybe this was made on purpose - the plot of SC2 seems about as serious as the graphics, which is not at all.