There's nothing hypocritical about enjoying optional fun ahistorical content separate from the main campaign like a zombie-fighting mode in a historical game, and rolling your eyes at blatantly historical pointless nonsense... Like an anachronistic error anyone paying attention would have noticed(guns taking the wrong caliber for example), or any attempt to retcon fictitious corporate-mandated pandering into the histories of real people and real conflicts. Battlefield V-Gina would have likely gone over smoother if it had kept the pandering to an optional mode where you can wear ahistorical skins and use ahistorical weaponry. And, you know, didn't try to "Diversify" aka revise actual history. Do you think someone at COD HQ really believes what the colluding corporate newspapers say about gamers, and thinks this is going to fix things? Or do they just think they'd get more money from the mobile-game-player middle-aged wine-aunt karen demographic if it pandered to them sufficiently with sufficient rainbow bollocks? Maybe they think it makes for good marketing, plus a smokescreen to distract people from their unethical treatment of employees. That seems as blatantly obvious as a murderous violent armoured-up state-serving thug in jackboots plastering rainbow propaganda on his innocent-beating club and war shield in an attempt to deflect criticism.