@liquidprince: I am not trying to be confrontational here, but your argument has no basis of fact behind it. The greatest works of art in history are considered great not because they are power fantasies or because they capture the idealized human form. If you walk into an art museum the majority of pieces there will be there because they capture the depth of human emotion and the breadth of imperfection in human form and character. Idealized figures are rarely the focus of art, as they don't communicate anything about real people. To use an example everyone knows - the Mona Lisa isn't famous for her looks (doesn't even have eyebrows, dude), she is famous for her ability to connect with you when you look at her. Take anything by van Gogh/Picasso/*insert famous artist here* and you'll see they are not appreciated because they depicted the sexiest people, they are famous because they captured something about humanity in their paintings. If you are referring to sculpture specifically, there are more examples of idealized forms (see: David), but that's because creating the illusion of muscle and flowing cloth out of a block of marble is a staggering achievement, not because the bodies themselves say anything important.
A staggering minority of video games these days manage to say anything about human nature. I think it's because they are primarily made by heterosexual men for heterosexual men as consumer products, not as art. I think video games certainly can be art, but sorry, Marcus Phoenix doesn't really count. At least not in the context of today's market. Does this mean games are wrong for portraying idealized people in archetypal roles? Not necessarily, but saying that there is anything pure or artistic about the majority of AAA games today, or that this is the best we can do/the way it should be, really sells games short as a medium.
Also, your comment about men and women routinely being viewed as masculine/feminine "because that's just the way it is", is completely false (see: matriarchal societies). Are there undeniable physical differences between men and women? Yes, does that define their role in society? Absolutely not. And I think one reason games are being criticized as sexist is because they simply don't reflect the variety of characters both men and women can portray. As the OP said, it's not so much what games are doing, but what they are not doing that is the problem. The only real way to have more games made that represent/speak to a wider array of people is to communicate that the market for those products it out there, which I think is slowly becoming acknowledged. People who are satisfied with male power fantasies can have them but I think it's fair that we all promote the idea of making games for everyone as gamers, not just people who want the same things we do. There is still plenty of room for development in the industry.