Half Life, Rise of Nations, and Call of Duty

None of these are indie games. While the teams were a lot smaller than modern AAA, they weren't one or two people making a game in their spare time the way many indie games get made.

Pixel art games are popular for reasons including being much easier for solo devs or small teams to create. It cuts out a ton of work like rigging models, in many cases dealing with physics, complex lighting, and all sorts of those things. Depends on the game of course, but in many cases a lot of that stuff is either a non-isssue or way simplified. All art assets can have a unified look and quality without taking forever to make.

Games can also be lightweight on needed specs to run. Again helpful for solo devs or small teams which might not be optimization experts, and it means much less of having to figure out how to help people having issues on all sorts of hardware combos.

Pixel art can be easily readable on small screens pretty easily, which is good for things like playing on a Steamdeck. Again, plenty of non-pixelart games are readable on screens, but it is certainly easy to do it in that style.

This isn't to say non-pixel art indie games don't exist. There's tons and tons of them. I'm pretty sure something like 50 trillion indie games are released on Steam every picosecond. There's plenty that do the late 90s-early 2000s aesthetic. Or you can just play old games on Steam, especially ones that have gotten official or unofficial quality of life improvements since their release.

Then don't play them..?

Disclaimer: I know this is unpopular opinions, just paying my 2 cents.

Its simple (the art, not the concept). An indie game dev can get a lot of pixel art for the same amount as a single highly detailed and accurately animated protagonist. It's cost efficient, and it looks good most of the time. That's enough for most people.

Pixel art is just a stylistic choice. Development of such textures is usually more accessible, but not necessarily easier. There's a real art to making pixel art look good.

Like, does this look bad or lazy to you?

If so I strongly recommend trying to make some pixel art yourself, you'll quickly find it's not all that easy.

I agree. I grow up watching graphics get better and better, I saved money for a faster PC, was so excited when the 3Dfx VooDoo came out. It's amazing how far game graphics have come (and how immersive and massive they can be, including the stories). I have nothing against people enjoying the indie games, but it's not for me.

I don't much like pixel art games, either; tho not because of the pixel art. I simply like 3D environments better, and most pixel art games are 2D. 3D pixel art games get the best of both worlds.

Whatever happened to other art styles? Why don't we see games with vector or pseudo-3D (or 2.5D) art?

Plenty of those around, you just have to look. I've been playing a bunch of Synthetik lately and it's glorious

it's a stylistic choice, not a performance one. This post is as if you're going to an art musem, complaining about cubism art when you like impressionalism. Effort is still needed to make good pixel art, especially because of the smaller resolutions.

As others said, just don't play pixel games. There are literally thousands of games out there that use a different art style

This is less unpopular and more uninformed opinion.

OP clearly knows nothing about making games and only wants every dev to cater to their likings without even considering that pixel art can be a forced choice to keep costs and dev times bearable to small or one-man teams (stardew valley). It can also be an aesthethical choice because it goes well with the game's concept (sea of stars) or even a way to keep the game cheap (vampire survivors).

Also, saying the pixel art is lazy shows OP has probably never seen a detailed pixel art game. See Chained Echoes or the aforementioned Sea of Stars as examples. 

Just because a game doesn't have shiny 3d graphics doesn't mean it's bad or lazy.