I should've bolded some stuff but I was on phone and I'm lazy. I think the post is BS in the context of this thread. "People will always have a problem with a character they didn't design" is a silly thing to say. Not all character designs are (widely) criticized and even if some (aspects) are criticized, it doesn't mean the whole design is crappy or that addressing the criticism means anything to the important aspects of a character (so no, making Ann not wear skin-tight leather is not going to make her a "flat character"). And even then, not all criticism/opinions are created equal. "Ann's overly sexualized design is a cheap way to titillate the male audience of this game and doesn't fit her character arc/background/behaviour otherwise" is or can be a legitimate criticism. "Y U TAKE MY SEXY WAIFU AWAY! U PRUDE! SJW FEMINAZIS STRIKE AGAIN! THE AUTHOR WANTED IT THIS WAY, NO CRITICISM ALLOWED!" is not.
I disagree with the "well, Ann is this way because of her background that the author intended, she is provocative, deal" argument as well. Ann's design is not good both in terms of in-game logic (which has already been pointed out pretty well in many posts today, so I'm not gonna repeat it) and in terms of what the game's developers have publicly stated. They wanted to make these characters sexy DESPITE anything related to their person, DESPITE any logic to where and when these attires are worn. So the in-universe logic is flawed and the authorial intent is problematic..
Plus even if there was a story reason for Ann to dress sexy, "I'll make her dress sexy in more or less inappropriate contexts but she'll TOTES have a reason for it" is such a tired concept and it still has roots in these (usually) male directors/leads wanting to sexualize women. Just because it has an in-game/in-story explanation doesn't make it problem-free.
And this idea that asking for women to not be overly sexualized & objectified through flimsy reasoning (and using less of other problematic aspects of women in fiction) will lead to flat characters with nothing interesting going on about them is dumb as well.
1) No one is saying that no female character can ever be sexy or wear sexy clothing. Generally, people just want more variety (so not every Japanese game with women/young underage girls in it needs that beach/bathhouse scenario where women can be glad in tiny bikinis & not every female warrior wears a tight top & short skirt + of course there's the issue of lack of body variety), and people want the sexy stuff to make some modicum of sense.
A contemporary game where the story takes the characters into a fancy party (see: Uncharted 4 and Nadine at that one party that Drake crashes to steal shit)? It's ok to have the women dress up in sexier clothing because in real-life context a lot of women do like to dress up on those kinds of occasions. Though even then, if there are more than one woman at the party, you can showcase some variety because women can think different looks are sexy/makes them look good, not everyone wants to draw a ton of attention to their body shape and not everyone wears the tightest, most revealing evening gown possible.
A woman fighting for the survival of mankind in a post-apocalyptic situation, against nightmareish, deadly monsters? Maybe that's not the best situation to wear a tank-top & miniest skirt ever in and maybe don't make up dumb-as-all-fuck reasons for why their half-naked attire is actually the most powerful armor in-game. Put them in some clothing/armor that actually fits the fucking context/situation/their profession. There is some room for "rule of cool" & stylistic flourish, but that doesn't have to mean all logic flies out the window and women go fight the evil god that will bring ruin to all humankind half-naked & in high heels. Of course, realistically speaking no amount of armor will protect against a dragon breathing insta-skinmelting hot fire at you but still, at least having proper armor looks more fit for the situation.
2) Asking for less problematic characters & character designs is also not going to lead to flat characters. Asking for the removal of or more consideration when including possibly problematic aspects is not the same as asking for flawless, dull, flat characters. If removing sexy clothing from a female character will make her a flat, dull character, she wasn't much of a one before that. They can still make these characters flawed individuals without making all women dress in skimpy/skin-tight clothing or, to take another problematic aspect of women in fiction, not making "rape victim" such a default issue in so many female characters' stories.
So... yeah flaws don't have to be problematic in the misogynistic, sexist way, and not all problematic aspects are equal plus it can be ok to have villains/antagonists portray those problematic aspects that aren't necessarily a good look on the protagonist (i.e. it's ok for a villain to be racist if racism is a core theme in the story and that is handled in the narrative somehow, but I wouldn't make our supposed-to-be-relatable, upbeat good guy protagonist racist, at least not without treating it as a serious character flaw that needs addressing).
tl, dr: Critique of overly sexualized designs & objectifying handling of women & asking for better representation is not going to lead to flat characters if the storytellers writing these stories & characters are worth their shit. "Could her clothes/armor make some sense" is not the same as the removal of all interesting flaws & rough edges of a female character.
