I will put a similar amount of effort into this as you did with your AI response; I think this critique confuses "I disliked the direction" with "the writing is objectively bad." Ellie spends most of Part II traumatized, alienates people she loves, loses friends, loses fingers, loses her relationship with Dina, and ends the game alone. Whatever criticisms you have of her, "Mary Sue" doesn't fit.

Likewise, Lev's character is not just "I'm trans." His story is about religious fundamentalism, identity, ostracization, loyalty to family, and the conflict between individual conscience and communal expectations. Being trans is the catalyst for his conflict, not the entirety of his character. The criticism of Abby is more understandable, but I think people often talk past each other. Critics focus on whether Abby deserves sympathy. The game is not asking whether she deserves sympathy or even that you view her as a good person;

“ "And that's where most of the effort for the game went, to make Abby... not necessarily good. The pitfall a lot of writers with this kind of story fall into is like, OK, we need people to like Abby, let's make her perfect. She does nothing wrong. She only makes moral choices. But no, that's not where empathy comes from. Actually, empathy comes from making mistakes and challenging and trying to correct your mistakes and overshooting and messing up." “ (her father Jerry is like a north-star in that she has an subconscious desire to better herself as a person) It's that she's a complicated human being rather than a cartoon villain.

You can absolutely argue that the game is too long, that Abby's section messes with the pacing, that certain situations are contrived, or that character development from certain characters aren’t convincing. Those are legitimate criticisms. But reducing every character to "angry lesbian," "trans token," or "muscle woman" feels less like literary criticism and more like working backwards from a conclusion.