"Call of Duty" is the titular title in the first-person shooter genre of games. Almost every modern gamer has at some point played at least one "Call of Duty" game, whether it was the original WWII shooter or a more recent release like “Advanced Warfare.” However, Infinity Ward’s latest addition to the franchise “Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare” has been received with less-than-positive reviews. In fact, the trailer for the game is now the second most disliked video on YouTube, and it achieved that title in less than two weeks after its release.

This pile of garbage is in the lead by three million.

The saddest thing about it is the game is not set to release until November this year. The most critical feature of which was the time period the game takes place in: the future. This, of course, is an odd objection to the game because for the past 10 years, "Call of Duty" has taken place in the future with the exception to three non-consecutive games, “Call of Duty 3,” “Call of Duty: World at War” and “Call of Duty: Black Ops.” Now, with that point being made of the other seven games released the five most recent have taken place in the future to some extent or another. If anyone doubts me in regards to the “Modern Warfare” series being set in the future, well, here’s a video that explains the timeline.

So the mission, “All Ghillied Up,” takes place in 1996 (because I know Chernobyl happened in 1986), 15 years before the events of the game, which is 2011. The game was released in 2007 and finished its run in 2011 with “Modern Warfare 3” which takes place in 2016-2017. So technically speaking yes, “Modern Warfare” was more futuristic than modern. I mean, for God’s sake, the second game introduced heartbeat sensors as a weapon attachment.

You know this non existent piece of future junk.

Now, you may be asking me how this all correlates with the complaint of "Infinite Warfare"’s futuristic setting? Well, the answer is simple when you look at the sales numbers. “Modern Warfare” and every “Call of Duty” afterward that was set in the future have either broken the sales record or were top of its sales chart in that year.

Long story short -- like sex, the future sells. This brings me to my next point. Activision (the folks that own the franchise) has -- because of this fun fact -- been slowly ramping up how far into the future the games take place. Think about it; “Black Ops 2” is set in 2025, “Ghost” is in 2027, Advanced Warfare is in the 2050s; and the most recent, “Black Ops 3,” is set in the 2060s. Face it, Activision has been speculating on the sales of their games the same way banks speculated on the U.S. housing market just before the 2007 crash. And you know what? It is working.

Die hard "Call of Duty" fans are stupid enough to buy it and love it ,plus there are enough of these idiots out there to make this game a hit. So, no, this game’s success will not be because Activision had to digitally re-master the original “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare” and sell it as an $80 bundle.

If you ask me, I’m almost certain that these Dew-drinking, Doritos-eating troglodytes with crazed fantasies that my mother is a cougar will, yet again, complain next year when “Call of Duty: Millennial Warfare” is set a thousand years into the future and some far flung galaxy. Hell, how about we add aliens to the mix? They are still going to buy it simply because it has "Call of Duty" slapped on the title. Worst thing is it will still graphically look outdated.

See what I mean?