I think that many people today would still value 2D if game developers would just ...you know ... dare. 2D offers something that 3D cannot offer. For example, I have yet to see an RPG that is as atmospheric as Baldurs Gate & Co. 2D can offer certain atmospheres that 3D cannot, although I can hardly define those atmospheres. There is always something "technical" and that "simulation"-feeling adhering to 3D, whereas with 2D, the organic, the story and immersion dominate. 3D speaks to the eyes only, whereas 2D speaks to the mind via our eyes. 3D feels as if it is more the product of a computer, a result of automatic processes, whereas 2D lets you sense the human origin behind everything (it's more art than thechnique), and everything has a meaning because it differs from the perfect models. 2D gives you a picture of how some other human has perceived (or imagined) a scene whereas 3D just throws the whole unfiltered chaos at you. And that's not what narration is ought to do. It should give you carefully selected input in order to purposefully create feelings and atmospheres. I think that 2D also allows you better control over the combinations of shapes and colours that the player sees, and thus can create more consistent experiences. In real 3D, light and shadows change colours, rotation alters forms, and the player can position himself where he perceives unsatisfying or at least not intended views. In some way, 2D also seems to fit better to the display-device, which is a FLAT computer screen. For me, 2D is just the proper "narrative" mode. I don't get it why EU (where 3D serves no functional purpose at all! And where 3D isn't even real 3D because you can't rotate!) sacrifices what a well done 2D map could bring to the game.
I can't help but feel less immersed into most games since they come in three dimensions. At least this is my hpyothesis. Maybe it's just because I've grown older. But games in 2D often had a special magic about them. And thank god there are still some new releases, mainly indie games.