No. The 90's are all the years starting with 199*. So that is Jan 1st 1990 to Dec 31st 1999. It is the only way it is ever used.

Your problem is from assuming that the Gregorian calendars millenium (which logically would go until Dec 31st 2000) matches up to our current view of the decades. In any case most people treat the first millenium as only having 999 years rather than a thousand so we have nice numbers =P

Edit: Meaning this decade goes from Jan 1st 2000 to Dec 31st 2009.

Only if you believe we started counting years at Year 0 instead of Year 1.  We started counting years at Year 1,  which means the decade isnt over for another 13 months.

OT:  I basically agree with CGI's list, I would change a few but due to lack of time I will cheat and go with his.

Actually the first decade was actually not a decade. It's counted as being from Jan 1st 1 to Dec 31st 9, only nine years.

A decade is a period of 10 years. Anyone who can count will notice that if you start at the beginning of of the 0th year and count to the end of the 9th year you have counted 10 years. End of argument, ayone else can go learnhow to count in school.

If you want me to demonstrate for further proof:

jan - dec year 0: 1
jan - dec year 1: 2
...
jan -dec year 9: 10

Vlad, there was no year 0.

Anyway.

As to the decade argument:

Decades, if we go by strictly technical terms, should end at, say, 2010, but this is not so because we have come to define decades as being things like 2000-2009. The definition defines discourse!

I realized this even after winning this argument before.

Looking at something objectively in the arts means looking at it from a more technical nature.  You take your personal reaction out of the equation.  With more traditional art forms, it's relatively simple.  For example, with a piece of literature, you can look at the prose, symbolism, diction, etc.  The abilities of the writer and how well they accomplish whatever goals the author has for that piece of literature.  The same thing can be done with paintings, sculptures, movies, etc.  However, the problem with video games is that their fire and foremost goal is to entertain.  Thus, while we can look at things like level design, controls, art design, etc., it's very hard to analyze how well they accomplish the main goal because it's all about entertaining, and that's inherently a personal reaction.  Thus, in a sense, you really do have to look at how the majority of players enjoyed the game (although these people must be within the target audience).  It's not really relevant that some FPS junkie hates Zelda because it lacks guns.

This is a well-thought-out post and I appreciate you taking the time to make it but this isn't strictly true, either.

The thing about art interpretation - we'll take literature as an example since I am a literature student - is that little to none of it is really objective. The thing about symbolism, diction, and prose is that we can only quantify one (maybe two) of those, and interpretations of works are still immensely subjective. There are schools of criticism - probably the largest ones, actually - that say that the author's intent is not nearly as important as the interpretations of critics, which define the dialog around it, so the author has little or nothing to do with the meaning of a work. THere are certain objective criteria, yes, but htat's true in games too.

I appreciate what yo uare saying, bu I don't think that the arts in general are as fine-honed or objective as you may believe.

I mean the 0th year not the 0 year. As in 90, 80, 70, 2000. That being said if the decade ended in 2010 then we would have counted 11 years, not 10. Independent of efinition and things, mathematically it's still 00-09.

.........Soooo bored I'll say few games but maybe I will did wrong...Star Fox adventures(For its graphics), TLOZ OoT on GC limited edition with Wind Waker and Killer 7

....What? No. If we ended at 2010, then we would start at 2001 (like with the millenium actually beginning in 2001).

But thisi s all badly beside the point!