What you say makes little sense. Also, you yourself only released 2d games, so answer the question yourself, why games are 2d and not 3d.

Also, there are games with 3d here.

3D adds a lot more complexity to development and lot more ways to brake the game adding more time and resource into testing basic features.

Also 3D assets are way more scarce than 2D.

Now that said, it's not hard to make a 3D game with the current big engines out there.

Making 3D games requires a deeper understanding of 3D math, at least to do it right, which can be a barrier for a lot of people.

On 2D games, it’s possible to figure out for yourself what’s happening on the screen and do custom solution to problems. When you start involving 4x4 matrices, different spaces, and shaders, it immediately becomes overwhelming, at least to someone who is not familiar with those concepts.

"It was my 1 public game and last , But it was a lot more easier than 3d one , in case you are making from scratch. In addition I can say it skill based work and needs understanding of concepts.

But idk why I didn’t look back "

You already had the answer before making this topic...

I posted two (partial) 3D games.
But as your screen is flat and mouse input is in 2D, it makes sense that everything is presented to the camera in a way very close to 2D.

Screenshot for reference.

Agreed with the other posts here.

2d ui is often more intuitive, more accessible, just easier for many devs, and depending on the genre and game design there may not be a strong reason to make everything 3d from a game play pov.

Besides, some 2d titles actually do still look gorgeous. 2d game engine does not always mean 'low res pixel art.' I've seen beautiful hand drawn 2d work like in indie title 'Gorogoa' and painterly work like 'Braid' or recently 'The Master's Pupil' and then there are my aesthetic niches which vary...  can sometimes include handcrafted miniature art, I have an isometric minigolf game and a first person Mystlike puzzler, both of them are in the works and each one of those two done with realistically detailed large scale miniature art. 

And then there are the many, many 2d engine games that still make use of 3d rendered art. So many old 90s games did this from Simcity 4, rollercoaster tycoon, The Sims, Starcraft, the original Fallout. Myst, Riven.  Less common now as 3d is more attainable than it once was but still a valid dev route especially given the continued presence of lower end systems (mobile gaming) and the fact that it is possible to make a 2d game run and look beautiful on nearly any system. 3d games with that sort of fine, intricate art detailing will typically have higher hardware requirements as the cost of the added freedom of motion.

Now, some game developers on the indie side have done amazing stuff with 3d games.

I know a number of solo indie devs who made 3d games which look graphically amazing. Carlos Coronado, Danny Weinbaum and a number of others come to mind.

It clearly isn't impossible to do 3d art in a 3d engine really well as an indie, it just adds complexity and work. Danny Weinbaum spent over 7 years working on his "cozy, pacifist skyrim knockoff" - an open world game called Eastshade. 

He made about 2 million $ in Steam sales from his project, another reminder that though 3d is harder in some ways, if you do it well it can also be worth it.

But it is always also a gamble, to some extent, what if those 7 years had resulted in a total misfire? What if nobody even notices your game after you have been pouring years into it? 

There is something to be said for doing a smaller thing, a demo or similar, and throwing it out to the world game jam style as a way of confirming its core conceptual appeal. A way of checking if you are going off track before committing to a huge production. If the small example finds an audience, then it is likely the larger extension of the basic thing will too. And that is exactly what got eastshade moving in the first place, it is why Danny committed 7 years to it. Because he started with a little, modestly successful short project "Leaving Lyndow" and learned from that, that the sort of game world he was making appealed to a lot of people. 

I don't have a demo, I am diving straight in (for better or worse) and just gauging odds of success based on whether people respond in any way to early imagery and material relating to my work.

Maybe that is dumb but I know even if my efforts fail I will be okay life wise so... I just realize that even if some of this fails hard it isn't the end. I have game asset collections gaining ground steadily and a successful Etsy print services shop. I have fallback, that is valuable. Don't risk everything on a gamble that could fail horribly. Have a backup plan!

I grew up in the 90s and pixel art is just a stylistic choice for me

3D graphics require more work and (very arguably) artistic skill. My experience with doing 2D (specifically pixel) art is that it has a much lower floor than other art styles. Using small and stylized sprites doesn't require you to understand anatomy and composition nearly the same way as making a fully rendered 3D model. For artists who are just starting out and want to make artwork for their game but aren't particularly good at drawing, pixel art is something you can dive into and make relatively quickly. Of course, making really high-quality pixel art still requires a substantial amount of talent and skill.

Plus, the turnaround time is a lot quicker. I am doing all of the artwork for my game, and using pixel art means that I can create and revise artwork much more quickly than if I opted for 3D.

But I grew up on those old NES and SNES games, so admittedly I'm just a sucker for the style.