Thing is that 30 years ago developers tried to make due the best with the pixels they had at their disposal. Lately it seems though that developers are trying to do the least amount of work to cut costs. That's what puts me off of pixel "art" as it's not really an art decision but a cost based one. One can do pixel art and still do it good but lately it seems no effort is being put into it and it's only a bunch of pixel flung together.
Sure it's a cost-based one, but people sometimes seem to forget that some of these indies don't have much money to work with, so they manage as best they can. People complain about pixel graphics, people complain about Flash-like graphics, I've seen complaints about simple polygonal graphics in 3D games (on Twitter). iirc from the release thread, people were complaining about the art in Florence. Now,
maybe in this case the dev does have some decent money to work with, especially since they have a publisher, I don't know. Adding more color might not be too hard given the simplicity here.
I guess you also can argue in favor of more vector
-esque graphics like Night in the Woods or similar, though if every game had vector graphics that'd be a complaint too. :P "too simple" "not enough detail" "not hand-crafted"
(In my own art and gamedev experience I've learned that you sometimes just have to go for stuff and make the best of it, even if some people will bitch about aspects like the art. Constructive criticism is good but sometimes there's only so much you can change or improve given time-constraints and budget. it's a balancing act)