Okay, there's a few problems with your lines of reasoning here.
First:
The "games" you're talking about are generally just "casual" games for losers or non-competitive people, and wouldn't even be considered "games" to begin with in the real world of competitive games.
Real, competitive "gamers" play games such as fighting games, arcade games, simulation racing games and other "esports" games and try to develop high skill at them for tournaments or high score competitions. For example:
https://www.techspot.com/news/78370-...eal-world.html
Games like Horizon Zero Dawn are primarily just played as casual, "time-killer" games for people of little to no actual skillset.
Likewise, video and computer games make up a small portion of media and entertainment. The vast majority of media and entertainment (which includes varying portrayals of sex appeal) is in the forms of music, film, TV, magazines and such. The only reason that "video games" are being viewed in isolation from the rest of similar media is because they're comparatively "new" and "trendy", but focusing on them exclusively is highly inconsistent.
Second:
Anyone older than 13 who emotionally relates to "Lara Croft" or similar characters on any serious level is just an emotionally-stunted incel who'd be better off just getting a girlfriend/boyfriend and giving up their childish "games" altogether. Lara Croft has the depth of a character from SpongeBob or a bad Cartoon Network show. There are plenty of prominent men and women from history (e.x. Joan of Arc) or classic fiction who provide much better depth potential as a positive role model.
Third:
"Sexist" is just a trivial buzzword with inconsistent meanings (such as "discriminatory" or "exploitative") which has no relevance in our law or the real world, and is often just used by incels and sexually-inexperienced individuals on social media, who are too philistine to attempt any serious aesthetic critiques. Such as no-nothings arguing that such and such a depiction of "sex appeal" in a certain context is fine, while another similar depiction is "sexist" despite the portrayals being nearly identical.
As far as marketing primarily to men or women on the basis of who one's primary clientele is, that alleged redefinition of "sexism" is a good thing. Much as acknowledging the reality that men in general may be more likely to be into video games or other types of competitive games (e.x. chess) due to inherent differences is also perfectly fine (while not negating the reality that there are individual women who out-perform other men in those competitions).
The issue of
what's being marketed, such as tastelessness in makeup or other advertisements, is a different issue altogether.