[...] besides, it's the cover art of a game, why do you care so much?
Exactly. It's not like people are learning history through video games.
Looking for historical accuracy in AAA games is like looking for realism in Hollywood blockbusters.
Those are entertainment products, with PR suits trying to conduct campaigns in order to maximise profits along the current market trends.
Journos like minorites - we will have that, check.
They like empowered minority womyn in vidya games - check.
Etc., but that's obvious.
I think that most people don't criticize the appearance of the game itself, but rather the cringe-worthy marketing and catering to the the needs of market, they try to influence at the same time.
I mean - who would seriously buy that corporate talk about "rising awareness about less known sides of the conflict", or "bringing in my diversity". It's just employees following guidelines and doing checklists. I don't think they believe that shit coming from their mouths themselves.
Sure there are historically accurate games, but they either have to be accurate enough to appease grognards and therefore fall into small niche; or try to tread the middle ground, and dissatisfy both the grognards with their liberal approach to the subject, and the casuals with their complication and attention to minute details.
It might be a fun multiplayer action paced shooter for people who are into this type of games.
It's still stupid, bud I'd bet that it will share similar fate as Fallout the Fourth (i.e. people sperging and treating it like the evil incarnate on the forum, but many of those critics will still buy it).