Depends on how you define high quality, indie games with quality similar to Hollow Knight do not come out all the time.
It just is much harder to have that level of polish and amount of content without a bigger well oiled team, so almost no indie games reaches that level.
Which is completely expected, and not unique to this era. The commenter said "Released recently," as though there was some time where we were basking in masterpieces. If that's your definition for quality, the situation is still better now than it was at any other time in the industry.
There used to be hardly any indie scene. Steam was not dominant yet and consoles didn't let just anyone on their platforms. Because of this, there were far fewer games, and many of them were shit. But of course, we only remember the excellent ones, or the ones from our youth, as we do for film and music.
Today, the variety of different stories and risky ideas being tried dwarfs any other time, and people are pulling off more ambitious things with less money. And the games are also cheap. I got Songs of Syx for $25.
For what it's worth, there are a bunch of indie games I like more than Hollow Knight. I think it's a good game, but it's a pretty specific genre. I don't think we "peaked" there.
No film, no music, no game.
There's good, but there is no truly magnificent to the level I burst into tears and see the face of God.
Come on people. Your standards are too low.
Producing things of value takes a lot of time and effort, you would be too busy to waste time lamenting about things outside of your control.
Anybody with a big imagination must feel trapped by mediocre content. Daydreams are often more enjoyable.
But not finding joy in anything is an actual sign of depression. Have some media standards declined? Yes, definitely. But by no means is literally everything bad now. You can still find plenty of non-formulaic media on streaming services.
Moving to something else that provides joy is a sign of healthy life, not depression. If you don't like modern media, you don't have to find some that you like, you can look somewhere else, in a completely different area.
Hang in there! It gets better!
Even if you take an old established media, like literature, you can trivially read all the classics by the time you are 30.
Saying that about gaming industry, which is barely 50 year old, is a joke.
One can only say that when they no idea what "high standards" actually means.
Some time ago I started playing all the games that to me felt worthwhile to play in roughly chronological order.
I think the project is overall quite different than "reading all the classics" though - a lot of old games have aged pretty poorly so I can either skip them or abandon after giving them a fair shot.
I'm currently roughly in the 2000-2010 era of games. (It's not pure chronological, because I tend to sort play order by console, then by series, then by year.)
I don't think this is true, at least not for an ordinary person, unless you're dedicating your life to it (hardly trivial) or ploughing your way through for the sake of completion rather than absorbing them intellectually and emotionally. Writers like Joyce can be difficult to even parse if you're trying to read their work quickly, and to truly understand it you'll probably need to engage with secondary sources. And then there's the likes of Proust, which aren't exactly difficult to read but are extremely long (and probably won't do much for you unless you take your time with them). There's no objectively valid set of 'classics' but we're talking about certainly hundreds and arguably thousands of books. A book a week every single week from the age of 15-30 would do it if we're taking about a medium-sized set of classics...
Or spend a lifetime reading and re-reading them non-trivially.
"My definition of a great story has nothing to do with 'a varied and interesting background.' It is: One that can be read with pleasure by a cultivated reader and reread with increasing pleasure."
- Gene Wolfe