GAMING DECADE 2000-2010

[Boutros]

dunno001 said:

Boutros said:

dunno001 said:

zexen_lowe said:

Xen said:

Wrong. When did the 21st century begin? In 2001. Therefore, 2000 is part of the previous decade.

Yes and no. If you want to count decades as you count centuries (21st century, and this would be the 201st decade) then yes, that decade would run from 1/1/2001 to 31/12/2010. But a decade is simply a period of 10 years, it can be used between any period of 10 years. Thus, the 90s is correct, and also would be correct if I said the "'85-'94 decade"

Thank you, for someone FINALLY knowing the proper usage of decades. (And thus, I would assume, century, millennium, etc.)

(The rest of this post is in general, and not directed at anyone, especially zexen, who did get it right.) Just because something is on Wikipedia does not mean it is correct. It is a common misconception that the century began in 2000. As zexen alluded to, yes, a century can begin there, but not the 21st of the AD calendar system. A common use of decades and centuries are things like the 1800s, the 1930s, etc. Yes, they are what we call them, but they are not the definitive lines of the AD calendar.

To those who insist that "this millennium" started in 2000, I propose this question: What was the year range of the millennium that contained the year 684? 1492? 2010? Remember that a year can't be in 2 of "the millennium" at the same time. (Though it will, by definition, exist in 1000 different ranges of a millennium.)

Back to the topic, big changes to the decade of the 2000s (referencing 1/1/2000 to 31/12/2009) in my eyes are:

-Explosion of console online gaming.
-MS enters the console scene, while Sega departs it.
-Sony and Nintendo see the "ups and downs" of making consoles.
-Alternative input methods finally gain traction. (The Power Glove was mentioned, and the U-Force is frequently forgotten about.)
-Music games explode in popularity.

I can't say some of the other things started in this range. The graphics rush started in the 90s, console (and company) fanboyism dates to the 70s, console disk media is 90s...

Wikipedia is not that unreliable.

And there's no right way of counting years like this article from Wikipedia (yes) is explaining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium#Counting_years

You gotta love Wikipedia.

Right... so, going by Wikipedia, viewpoint 2 can be attested to public fear and/or interest in the rollover, saying there's 2 different millennia with 999 years, defying the definition of a millennium, or, the best one yet, saying a year exists that they don't acknowledge exists! (Not to mention that year 0 would have to exist in 2 millennia simultaneously.) Oh, what's this about the astrological calendar? It says there's a year 0? But... that year 0 corresponds to 1 BC. Thus, year 0 belongs to the millennium of -999 to 0. And the Julian calendar? This is year 2762 to that calendar! And that calendar doesn't have a year 0, either... (1 AUC = 753 BC, the first year of Rome's existance. Prior to this year, the Greek calendar was used.)

Anyway...

The majority wins. And the majority believe that 2000-2009 is the right way to count the decade we're in.

2000-2001 (1 year) + 2001-2002 (1 year) + 2002-2003 (1 year) + 2003-2004 (1 year) + 2004-2005 (1 year) + 2005-2006 (1 year) + 2006-2007 (1 year) + 2007-2008 (1 year) + 2008-2009 (1 year) + 2009-2010 (1 year) = 10 years

 

Sorry for derailing the thread but I guess it's kind of on topic.

Serious subject.