Tools based productivity, like this photo-sourcing style, is not an expression of laziness but a shift of creative focus. Tools free up spontaneous creativity, and tools empower unlikely people to care for something else than was possible for them to care for before, in a transcendental effort.
So it is not fair to judge the quality of what the tool did for him, but what else he could afford to accomplish instead. For example, Mathias, you would not want your little-dude animation to be judged in terms of pixel quality, but the effort you put into many fun animations you could come up with and implement pretty much because you did not have to care about pixel quality.
Of course, this video of a literal remake is not a good example, it's the worst case that looks lazy. He showcases an impressive skill though nontheless, in how something can be created non-traditional; I think he should not so much be criticised for lacking classic skills but watched for cleverness in what he does. Other than that there is nothing else to criticise but resulted pixel work in direct comparison. And this is a board of pixel specialists after all. But I thought I'd mention this in the larger scope of this thread. Games are very complex amalgamations of disciplines. Developers have to cover an overwhelming number of aspects -- and they excel in that one specifically which is their dearest interest in taking on all the other trouble. Their work should be held towards what was important for them to realize.
Good 3d assets can be costly to produce. But their advantage is that when done they are immensely flexible in employment, and polishing gameplay needs flexibility above all, as does the creative process toying around for new gameplay in the first place. That is how such a game should be judged for then. But again, that Flashback remake is not a good example of this either.
I'm always excited to see people find new ways of expressing creativity, even or especially when they put care into something else than I do.