Traditional films vs. 3d films?

There are some speculations that The Hobbit, in terms of its effects, is overwhelming and more for people. Some argue that filmmaking without all the crazy effects and technology is more efficient than 3d filmmaking.

I didn't know that:

• Even though the visuals in The Hobbit are astounding, they overshadow the basis of the movie itself.
• The movie can come off as "fake".
• Less is more. It seems as though that movies that don't have many effects are a lot more worthwhile.

I'm polarized by this article. Maybe it's this guy's delivery in his writing, but it seems like he's being a tad harsh. I also think it's kind of a shame that he'd think that filmmakers are going backwards when it comes to filmmaking. I feel like this article was a bit biased, personally.

My one question is can 3d effects really overpower a blockbuster hit?