A break from the regular interviews and professional reviews for a more personal, stupid and completely pointless tangent from a nerd with nothing better to do.

I decided to replay “Call of Duty: World at War,” “Black Ops” and “Black Ops II” after moving home from college for the summer, just for the fun time-waster and nostalgia from Xbox 360’s golden era.

As I believe millions of other American children experienced, I was banned from playing “Call of Duty” as a child under the guidance of my parents. Unlike other parental censorships, mine was riddled with holes. I was allowed to play “Watch_Dogs,” but not “Grand Theft Auto V.” I was allowed to watch “The Simpsons,” but not “Total Drama Island” (I will never understand that one). So it was, I was not allowed to play “Call of Duty,” but that was the only shooter I was banned from, not “Battlefield,” not “Killzone” and not even “Halo.” Just the big, bad “Call of Duty” striking fear into the hearts and minds of middle-aged parents across suburbia. Alas, in true childhood fashion, I got around this through my older cousin who showed me “Call of Duty: Black Ops” in his basement, leading me to eventually buy a used copy to hide under my dresser. The rest of history.

I initially wanted to praise the trilogy of games for their awesome action set pieces and 20th-century war aesthetic, with iconic battles sprinkled within a plot of secret agent shenanigans, and give them an all-around positive recommendation of this great era of the series.

But after just finishing my replay of “Black Ops II,” I really couldn’t shake how much Activision messed up what could have been a perfect template for the series to come.

The Black Ops series should have always stayed in the past, never set after 2000.

I loved “Black Ops.” It’s honestly one of my favorite first-person shooter campaigns. Everything was so well executed, from the ’60s espionage and later Vietnam aesthetic to the smart and deceptive plot. Along with being a great continuation of World at War, “Black Ops II” was OK, but its ’80s sections shined above the future parts, which became increasingly ludicrous to the point of Micheal Bay vomit. If it just stayed in the 20th century and had historic badass set pieces that blended history with secret wars, it would have been so much better. “Black Ops III”’s decision to go 100% into the future wars was such a horrible mistake that I genuinely couldn’t put myself to finish its dull drag of a campaign, so forgettable they gutted the single-player mode when releasing the game for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Call of Duty could have gone like this: “Black Ops”: 1900-2000, history-based wars, “Modern Warfare”: Keep to the present and make scenarios grounded in our times, “Advanced Warfare”: Title “Infinite Warfare” just “Advanced Warfare 2” and forward, and keep the future warfare to its own franchise.

That way, everyone would be happy. Future fans get their trash, modern fans do their own thing, and old-school war fans get their share. Nobody would be burnt out, as they would have installments on three-year intervals, enough time to grow hype and allow a window for trying out the other franchise.

But no, the franchise had to do everything at once and mess up the flow and try to start a new trilogy with every installment (and “Black Ops 4” being one of the worst games of the eighth generation).

[email protected]