Meh. A 2D game is substantially easier to build, and sprite artists are arguably easier to find than 3D artists/animators. Moving from 2D to 3D isn't a worthwhile consideration if it reduces your chances of finishing a first game.
Yep, but there is still a lot of things to consider. For example if the sprite artist would make a 3D model and render it from all possible views and it all possible situations anyway, then it COULD be maybe easier to directly use the model in the game. And positioning/rotating/scaling a 3D object in 3D world is incredibly easy, probably even easier than dealing with sprite sheets. Of course a different case is if you plan to use hand-drawn sprites.
I know about few developers (for example Xenonauts) who started the game in a 2D engine with pre-rendered sprites and then regreted the decision at a late development stage when they really couldn't start from zero. Thousands of sprite sheets which needs to be rerendered when lighting changes etc. A 3D engine is more flexible.
But don't misunderstand me - all I'm saying is that you should really think well about what are you planning to do and consider all advantages and disadvantages. A simple 2D engine can soon be holding you back and be more work than a 3D engine (which on the other hand is harder to get running). And on the other hand, many games are perfectly fine with 2D sprites and a real 2D engine.
So I don't agree with what you said in general, without further specifications. It is true, no doubt, but not in all cases, and sometimes it's even the other way around.
