Where I draw the line, and this is the same with the movie industry as well, is when the inclusiveness becomes the only selling point. I still go back to the 2016 Ghostbusters movie and all the controversy surrounding it accusing anyone who criticized it of being misogynistic when the movie itself sucked.
They're pumping out crap and because you can maybe make the main character non-binary or be able to have sex with both genders in a game, suddenly we're supposed to fawn over it, when in reality its all bloated crap with boring main stories and repetitive side quests. Focus on making a good game, then lets talk about inclusiveness, but so often now its the opposite where the primary focus is inclusiveness, and if it happens to be good, so what.
There's two distinct arguments here. I mostly agree with the first, if you want a right wing example of this recently, you can look at the film Sound of Freedom and how people who negatively criticized the movie (which I did not see) on its filmmaking merits were themselves criticized as missing the point of how important the film was in exposing child trafficking. But yes, the political messaging of a game, or a movie, or any art, should not shield valid criticisms of the art itself.
The second, particularly the bolded, I don't buy because it seems to imply that there's a dichotomy here between "inclusiveness" and "make a good game", which isn't really how game development works. "Inclusiveness" is usually made at the writing level, either by writers or by dev leads/producers dictating to the writers, whereas the quality of a game is an extremely complicated topic that I don't think can be reduced to "are there visible minorities", but I think is most impacted by game mechanics, ie how the player interacts with the game. I don't think The Witcher III is good and loved and won a ton of awards because it made one of the deuteragonists Ciri bisexual (in a way that can be cut out for release to less enlightened locals, as the age old tale goes), its because it has a good combat system and crafting system and diverse talent/gearing system that lets you play multiple playstyles (pro tip: magic build is useless at the end since a lot of endgame bosses resist/are immune to magic, don't pick it) and has a fleshed out world and etc etc.
It seems like a witch hunt, where a 1) extremely complicated problem 2) over which people have little to no control is cathected into an identifiable, typically less powerful target. Who poisoned the well? A witch did it. So to solve the problem- find the witch and remove her! Easy. Works every time.
I play World of Warcraft. The previous two expansions to the current one- Battle for Azeroth and Shadowlands- are widely considered to be bad games. To explain to someone who doesn't play WoW why they're considered bad is, frankly, impossible because it requires knowledge of a bunch of technical systems just to get to a baseline. Legion legendaries, world quests, daily quests, artifact weapons, artifact power, Mythic +, Mythic raids, Azerite gear, Azerite armour, island expeditions, Torghast, the Maw...a non-exhaustive list, and understanding these things is just to get your hypothetical ignoramus to a point where we can actually discuss the problem! So it makes sense why there's a tendency to dumb complicated things like that to "the problem is diversity."