Just because she shares some of the traits that she discusses as miss-ification (I don't remember the term she used - watched it a long time ago; the bow in the hair being ubiquitous is hilarious though), doesn't mean she's undermining her argument.
That's the same silly observation-jump-to-conclusion people make about e.g. those who are part of Greenpeace driving cars, taking flights and having their main fleet be diesel engine ships, and thus should not be taken seriously on their talking points on pollution.
Specifically, she chose to wear make up and wear earrings - for whatever reason. In the case of a game character, that choice is made entirely for you.
Now, do I think that every game should have a characters with complete customization options? Well, actually, yes. Why not. In fact, it would be about time that the game industry picked up on the Wii's 'Mii' construction and allowed gamers to play with their own humanoid avatars in any game so that people can design their own characters to their heart's content, or have it designed professionally for them. The technology has been there since games started using skeletal systems instead of rigid pre-defined poses.
But assuming that's not within budget constraints, there's at least little to no reason to always put a bow on a cartoonesque character to indicate it's supposed to be female, or to give more human-like characters large breasts, a voluptuous behind, and skimpy clothing - just like the male characters don't always need to be six pack buffs with a 5 o'clock shadow and a deep-but-not-too-deep voice. If that's exactly what the game calls for (hello, Mortal Kombat), fine. Otherwise, spice things up, keep things interesting, and stop reinforcing the stereotypes that the games industry has, even if the criticism comes from somebody who may very well embody that stereotype.