I'd like to point out that the point they made about men not enjoying objectified females is very different from what they were implying. If you read the article, it talks about people liking non objectified females in games. As in, females who aren't damsels in distress and serve no purpose in game. However, this character archetype isn't very common. Which leads me to believe they tweaked Time magazine's article to fit a different agenda. Stating that women in games shouldn't have physically fit bodies is agreed with by many male gamers. While I agree that women shouldn't have harshly unrealistic proportions. I am also going to assume that most male gamers enjoy it when both male and female characters are physically fit. Especially if they were an explorer forced to run around, jump, be active, or say, a hologram which was designed to look cool, and nothing else.
I'd like to point out that the point they made about men not enjoying objectified females is very different from what they were implying. If you read the article, it talks about people liking non objectified females in games. As in, females who aren't damsels in distress and serve no purpose in game. However, this character archetype isn't very common. Which leads me to believe they tweaked Time magazine's article to fit a different agenda. Stating that women in games shouldn't have physically fit bodies is agreed with by many male gamers. While I agree that women shouldn't have harshly unrealistic proportions. I am also going to assume that most male gamers enjoy it when both male and female characters are physically fit. Especially if they were an explorer forced to run around, jump, be active, or say, a hologram which was designed to look cool, and nothing else.