There's nothing to discuss. You don't understand the difference between objectification and sexual attraction. No amount of debate on this forum will change the definitions, or provide new definitions. You are of course, allowed to make up your own definitions in your head and then without particular research, or bothering to look it up, write trash and expect people to engage you sensibly. Free speech is great.
The non understanding is on your side - Objectification per its definition involves degradation of the value of something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification
You are talking about 'degrading' treatment of an
in-game 3d model which is manifested by a programmatical object. Its not a real woman. Its the creation of the player. You cannot 'objectify' it, since it actually IS an object - its very probably an object which is created according to OOP programming principles.
Thus, the proposition becomes moot.
........
Therefore, what you could argue, and by above definition what you (and others) had had argued, would evaluate the statement that goes in the form of "Creating in-game female toons with commonly acknowledged popular traits of attractiveness
would objectify women in general therefore its not good'.
And the moment it goes there, the argument i posed becomes valid - with that logic, any kind of attraction, desire, preference would objectify any segment of population which has similar traits, therefore all of them become invalid.