do you mean that the art is lazy and awful because it doesn't constrain to arbitrary limitations, or because it just looks unappealing?
my standards for art are typically just "if it ends up looking good then who gives a stuff," but i know a lot of people are pretty purist about pixel art being true to old hardware limitations. there's nothing wrong with that cus it can certainly get the job done and make some really charming art like you pointed out, but it's definitely not the only way or the "right" way to do it
i also don't really think there's anything wrong with people using pixel art in their games. it's definitely easier for most people (doesn't mean it's easy to make it look
good since art is art), and i see that as more of a pro than a con. there are a lot of programmers that want to make games but suck at art. they can't make 3D models or high quality drawings, and likely also can't animate, and they shouldn't be stopped from making games just because they can only manage pixel art. i can get if people feel like it's gimmicky or stale at this point, tho i feel like it's worth it if it lets more people start making games. the reason we're seeing such an indie revolution is because it's becoming so easy to make games. you don't have to be good at everything to make a game any more, there are tools and resources to fill in the gaps that are outside your skill set and that's loving Amazing
