honestly most "indie" games are poor looking and id rather drop 60 on a AAA title then 10 on a side scrolling game. Indie games serve only to be used as games with gold.
That said rocket league is the exception and such a simple concept ends up so greatly executed
I avoid AAA 3D games like the plague because I think THEY look rather poor, personally. There's generally an over-reliance on fidelity, production value/polish, and realism with no charm, personality, or artistry. There's some attempt at art direction (which I think is way more important than "graphics") but it all ends up feeling very dull, typical and mediocre to me, and I don't think that will age well. People keep acting as though we're out of the woodwork and the way that the look of PS1/PS2/PS3-era 3D games became dated no longer apply to the improvements of this generation, but the current stuff will end up holding up just as poorly after a few years, IMO.
That said, I'll agree that "most" Indie games look ugly and are rather poor-- You really have to wade through the lot of them and pick and choose. But I think the exceptional ones look and feel tighter and more interesting aesthetically than the best AAA games, personally, and much like the exceptional 2D games from the 90s and early 2000s, will continue to look just as great with time (recent Indies, anyways-- I think they were pretty rough early on and people just looked past it-- Super Meat Boy is ugly, for example).
To my eyes, Celeste, Cuphead, or Inside are significantly better looking games than God of War, Spiderman, or Red Dead Redemption 2, which just do nothing for me visually, despite ambitious (I would argue soulless) efforts to have photo-realistic environments and similarly bland blockbuster-movie-esque effects.
Look and feel are the single biggest draw for me in video games, and I completely stepped away from the medium for about a decade because of how bland the big ones all started to look and feel.
