I think the biggest issue with her argument in this particular video is that you could attribute many -if not all- of the terms she uses to any NPC that gives you something in return for its behaviour or in-game purpose.
Instrumentality: Many NPCs, male and female are used as 'tools for the players' own purposes, say in Perfect Dark when you used the psychosis gun to 'mind control' enemies to work for you.
Commodification: Red Alert 2: Yuri's revenge (when playing as Yuri's faction) used slaves as power by putting them into grinders, although not strictly a 'commodity' the principle is the same - using a character (or non-character rather, as is her point) as a resource.
Interchangeability: For years games have given you points for killing enemies, while often also giving you points for collecting objects in the game world. This equates murder with whatever items you collect.
Violability: Any and all humans/enemies on the opposing side to you are violatable, because they are inherently the enemy. The grand theft auto games are depicted often as being specifically targeting women in objectifying ways, but really, they -like many other sandbox style games- treat everything as an object for the player to use. Killing pedestrians and civilians is commonplace in video games - with no specificity towards women. In fact men are likely more often the victims of the player than women, and are often just as powerless.
Disposability: Any NPC can be considered disposable once their usefulness is gone - specifically in the context of open world sandbox games.
The larger point she should be making is that all people are dehumanised in videogames. Most military shooters are men killing other men, it isn't about a 'power-fantasy' for men specifically, it is simply about making the player feel powerful in general, and all of these games show human life as expendable.
I remember John Carmack saying that he was glad that his games were based around killing demons and Nazis, as people had no conflicting emotions about them as 'the enemy' and were ok therefore with killing them. In military shooters where the lines should be more blurred, but aren't necessarily, it puts forward a more dangerous problem, where human life (apart from your own) is devalued. The less deep the storyline, the less we care about the characters and the more this dehumanisation occurs - this is why Spec Ops: The Line was a step in the right direction.
As much as I agree that there are sexualised women in video games, you also can't remove all context. Why are strip clubs/strippers/prostitutes in the games she mentions? Well, for the most part, these games deal with criminality as a principle theme. Strip clubs and prostitutes exist, and as is common in other media (such as films etc.) criminals often seem to run these establishments (and obviously prostitution rings) so it is fitting that these places/situations would be a part of that setting.
The NPCs themselves are obviously going to be sexualised in that environment, but let's not forget that strip clubs and prostitutes do exist, and they do (obviously) sexualise themselves, and 'commodify' themselves. So if there is warranted context for these places in a game, and they exist in real life, then it becomes hard to entirely dismiss them as 'invented' or 'contrived' specifically for some deliberate objectification of women; when they are perhaps simply a depiction of objectification that happens in the real world.
I can agree with her in many of her videos, but sometimes she squeezes things through a feminist prism with no real merit to the argument - such as claiming that pink lego is somehow sexist, and a reinforcement of gender stereotypes because it is marketed for girls - that's an argument for another post, though.
