Um, that is the point - reflective of the times, blatant sexist crap.
Hoorah, a sexism topic derail! Why not, I'm in a posting mood.
A common misconception with computer games is the idea that if something negative happens to a female character then something sexist has happened, or if something displays an overly attractive female then something sexist has happened. Which is a kind-of chinese whispers end-point of a debate that was solely about the concept of social equality - sexism being a descriptor for situations where a talented female would be blocked by a glass ceiling, similar to the original aim of the term racism.
Something that simply causes offence to a person is neither sexism nor racism, because that event has nothing to do with social progression for any individual. Offensive portrayals only become sexist/racist if they become so dominant that the stereotype has the ability to negatively influence a social acceptance situation, such as applying for a job.
Just having naked women or acts of violence against women does not deem something sexist in and of itself, particularly if the game presents just as equal situations for any males in the game - and who's ever played a game with ugly male characters who never get hit? This is the part where context is important. And this is the part where one has to decide whether the problem is having nearly naked women or whther the problem is that there isn't enough equality of choice in the market to provide games with nearly naked men.
Offence in and of itself isn't enough of a complaint to mark something as sexist. People can be offended by anything. A relation of mine is currently offended by the amount of food programmes on TV and the site of another pile of veg on his television screen sends him into a blind rage. It's not that he hates veg, it's that he hates the fact that there's too many veg programmes and not enough War programmes. Some people get offended by sex on television, some get offended by violence, some by veg.
