I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real

I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real world. To take the game from the article as an example. http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg This one screen depicts seven floors and a bunch of objects. You can see a lot of things well before you need to interact with them. A lot of 3d views limit the scope of what you can see so that the game becomes 'Here's a thing, deal with it! Here's three more things, deal with them! Here's another...' There's also a bit of a disconnect between the visuals and reality of a lot of modern games. When everything looks near photo realistic, you expect to be able to walk through that gap in those rocks over there, but actually your hitbox is a little large and you won't fit. You don't get those ambiguities so much in 2D. Partially because of the abstract nature makes traversable/non-traversable quite distinct, but also because the view you are seeing will have been seen by the level creator. Arbitrary points of view allow you to look at a game in a way the creator didn't and can potentially expose missed details. I think some of the changes are just styles of design that have drifted over the years, some of those may have been driven by technical issues but now exist on their own. For instance early 3D games had much lower frame-rates which mandated a type of gameplay. Those limitations are now gone, but I think it left a lasting effect on the style of game that people made.