Sorry if there are any threads like this. I know that this is a controversial topic for fans of this genre, but as a person who likes both types of adventure game who is genuinely curious of people's opinions on this matter I think I can "host" (if you like) this debate in an unbiased fashion.
There are those people who are annoyed by 3D adventure games. This is especially the case with revivals of old Adventures (Sam & Max, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, etc), but some will claim that 3D in new adventures are unnecessary, too. Many 'indie' Adventure game titles are done in 3D, although it can be argued that this has just as much to do with budget concerns as anything else.
Some people have asked why they bother with 3D; 'surely hand drawn graphics are cheaper, quicker and easier?' But, surprisingly, some designers (and fans) of 3D interfaces have made the claim that this is not the case; that 2D animation is not quicker or easier.
The debate, like so many others, springs from 'Nostalgic Longing for the Past' verses 'Desire for change and "progression"' (I emphasise the word 'progression' because I've heard it used so many times to describe things that, ultimately, improved nothing or even made things worse).
I, for one, can't comment on the efficiency of 2D over 3D from a technical point of view; I just don't understand that much about CGI or game design. I can make guesses, though; 2D representations would still have to be coloured by computer, the characters would either have to scanned from a drawing and then animated (and I don't know if this would be difficult or not) or made as 2D CGI. But I don't see why this is more difficult or less preferable than 3DCG; most games companies already hire 'concept artists' so it's not like the don't have access anybody with right skill set or would have to take on extra staff to accommodate this.
As I said; I enjoy both forms of game and I'm not going to 'attack' anybody who makes arguments either way, I do hope that others will try not to do so, either.