There's a huge difference between "good graphics" and "hi-res". It is still very possible to produce crappy hi-res graphics, and they are generally even uglier than crappy lo-res graphics. Look at the extremes: a 2-color 16x16 sprite is pretty much always medium-crappy, but it won't get any worse. As you increase the resolution, you have more room to make good sprites, but the room for crap increases just as much. Since you have more choices to make, a bad artist will likely produce uglier graphics rather than better, while a good artists can use the tools and produce better art.
For indie 2d games, art production time and effort is a crucial factor, often making the difference in whether or not the game is ever finished. Producing hi-res art takes way more time, and even more to polish and get it right. A single developer can make a nice, polished 320x240x8 game with consistent art. Creating a full-blown 3D world that looks good in 1024x768x32 usually takes a dedicated artwork team.

My suggested solution: go for 3D!

I'd have to say that graphical quality is not so much about the resolution, or even the amount of colours used, but is about the appropriateness and confidence of the images within their relative canvas. Ie. you can have low-colour, low res sprites... but if they have character, are anatomically appropriate, and the animation is convincing (whether high or low frame count), then there is really no reason not to accept these graphics.

Colour depth and resolution are merely the canvas the artist chooses to work with. You can have good or bad art within such a context, but judging all water-colour paintings as better than oil is only a subjective opinion.

BRING ON TEH PIXELS!!

I've never seen 16x16 pixels character that is anatomically appropriate.

Trezker, yea. Basically, if a character isn't drawn convincingly, it will annoy the player. The anatomy can be all "wrong" as long as it's done this way consistently and with intent, and it will "gel". Otherwise, it's programmer art. And as was covered above, high-res 3D programmer art still sucks.

Darwinia is out? Guess I have to check it out then... Uplink was pretty amusing.

Look what we have to choose from. I think the fact that these are on top show the poor quality of graphics in games created with Allegro. Gameplay is fun, that I agree with, but I've played each of those games for about 10 mins. before I was turned off by the bad graphics.

I found something interesting a few days ago. My graphics card went to hell, so I put in my old one and fired up WoW. It looked horrible, and killed the gameplay for me. I then went out and got a new card, and it made all the difference.

1. Fenix Blade - 320x200x8.
Looks wonderful in my eyes, I could stare at it for hours, no problem

2. Alex the Allegator 4 - Low res, something like 4 colors.
4 colors, all greenish, I love it. I've cloned a monochrome game you know, the best spaceshooter I've ever played, Monospace.

3. Operating Spacehog - 320x200x8 (IIRC).
This is a really beautiful game, the gfx kick ass. Hard as hell, if you can beat it I bet the fire button has melted in the end.

4. XOP - 640x480x8 (again, IIRC).
This one didn't stick in my memory...

5. Frenetic Plus - 320x200x8.
Beautiful and hard... I just can't get along without freedom of control, so that game falls on the gameplay for me, not the gfx.

The problem here is that no one can actually agree on what "good" graphics are. Hi-res, high color graphics are not always good, and low-res, low color graphics are not always bad... depending greatly on who you ask.

Looking at the five games listed, I'd venture to say that all of them have a level of graphic quality and style that eclipses 95% of all 16bit era games (Alex 4 beging a visible exception, but even then it looks better than 95% of all GameBoy games), which for their time were considered professional grade works. No one looks at games like Chrono Trigger, Valken Assault Suits, Super Metroid, or Earthworm Jim and professes that they suffer from poor graphics. Antiquated, perhaps... but not poor.

Considering that, I think it would be more fair to say the games suffer not from poor graphics, but a style that does not suit your tastes.

You were not meant to be critic then. The best question to ask is, would you pay money for any of them? I'd say most people here wouldn't. I know I wouldn't.

This is the nostalgic factor. It clouds your judgment. This is why most people say these games created with Allegro are great games.

if i played a game that "felt" really nice, i would care if the graphics were a block for the head, block for torso, 2 blocks for legs.

if i wanted good graphics, i'd go see a hollywood film.

Thanks. But Chaos Funk is free.