Too bad since he's the main character of one of the best games ever made, which is also entirely free to play (in its vanilla form).

In addition to the earlier post about this being a generalization overall, I think that on the average, there is a slight shift towards the "not so good" end of the spectrum for sure. I'd say that it's not the fault of indie developers anyway, they simply have fewer means to establish a strong brand. The games likely don't get sequels, they have less of a budget for advertising etc. Indie games aren't about establishing long-lasting and successful franchises, as much as they are about creating a unique game experience that is self-contained in a one-shot game (which may lead to more, but that's less of the business model).

I know right? Even the good ones are just okay. I miss characters like Sparkster, Earthworm Jim, Nights, Parappa, even Ristar looked better than most today's characters.

Rose tinted glasses don't really help.

I can see some decent mascots today compared to the past which came from a time when being cringe worthy was passable and supposedly funny.

True. Mario didn't have tons of personality in the beginning. I'd say maybe around Mario 3 he actually came into his own as a character. Imagine Sonic coming out now? I think marketing helped those characters a lot as well. These new characters don't stand a chance on a small budget.

I agree.

Shovel Knight is a cancer that should not have been created.

Shovel Knight is a great mascot tho
So is Meat Boy

You dare insult Hat Kid? She will have you killed, you know.

Old games often have lame mascots too. For example, Link was basically just a Peter Pan rip off and Mario used to be 'Jumpman' without any background or characteristics.

I'd like to point out to the people who are mentioning Shovel Knight, Quote, (No one mentioned Shantae SMH) and the like:

despite the fact I believe this is a kneejerk thread, his very last sentence did exclude 2D games from the whole "indies suck at making characters".

With that being said, this thread's basis doesn't really make any sense. Some games claim to be spiritual successors, true. I don't believe most of the ones you posted pictures for do though. Some state they are inspired by a certain game, or its an ode to a certain game, but nonetheless they don't really claim that they are replacements.

Some of these games I recognize and it befuddles me the way you're framing them. A Hat in Time is good by any standard. What's the point to comparing it to Mario?

Skylar and Plux absolutely does not look like a mobile game. Cinematics-wise? Sure. Is it the most charasmatic? Don't think so. However, the gameplay itself looks pretty good.

How long ago have you been saving that Clive 'N' Wrench picture? Since 2016 it has looked nothing like that.

I'm not going to defend the games to the degree that they are the new golden age of mascots or something, but keep in mind you're comparing indie studios to companies that had a lot more staff and resources. Even then, many were not good for their time. Unless of course you want to explain how Bubsy 3D puts these games to shame.