Would a game that simulates cel-shaded animation with actual models or a game with entirely drawn sprites cost more to develop?
Depends on quality, the number of animations, and the animation pipeline.
Really high quality models + rigging can be really expensive million+, but 3D models, once set up, are easily manipulated to make make new animations. They're
extremely reusable. Also
2D is
generally cheaper, but it depends on frames of animation, quality, size, and style (single image vs multiple animating together). But whenever you want a new animation, that typically means someone needs to draw new sprites, so the cost of making new animations is relatively higher then 3D.
A major thing to also consider is memory cost. A 3D model has a relatively large memory footprint, but animations barely have any memory costs to them. For 2D, a new animation means new fully drawn sprites sprites which need to remain in memory at all times or be loaded dynamically. Every new 2D animation is a relatively large increase in memory usage, especially when it comes to high res art. Skullgirls
barely runs on PS3. Mike Z, the programmer and gameplay designer of SG and Indivisible, fought for every scrap of memory he could find and one of the characters (Big Band) actually had to be shrunk just to save memory and part of his move set needed special code to dynamically load and unload because he wouldnt fit. To put this into perspective, The Last of Us pushes the PS3's memory usage just as much.