| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (55)

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:05PM karnisov said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
meh.

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 10:14PM zhris said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I concur with your meh.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:06PM Triskelion said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I couldn't agree more, no other game in my lifetime has consumed so much time, brought incredible highs and lows and managed to get better over time.

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 8:26PM Firebreak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would agree with everything except the managed to get better part. It really is just more of the same over and over again.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:14PM Miffy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I mean it has to be there because it is the best mmorpg of all time, even if you don't agree. No other mmorpg has been as popular or gotten the reviews that WoW has. It also put the MMO genre on the map and gave birth to this new culture.

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 12:26PM Arcaria said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Most popular does not equal best. WoW is far from being the best MMORPG
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:17PM Zantom said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I love all these decade events and polls going on. The decade isn't over until the end of 2010... sigh.

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know some people think that the decade isn't over until the end of 2010, just like they said the new millennium didn't actually start until 2001, however they would be wrong. They are forgetting that we didn't start at year 1, we started at year 0.

Imagine that it is currently year 0, and we are about to celebrate the coming of year 1. When January 1st, 0001 hits, this is not the beginning of the first year, this is marking the completion of the first year, and the start of the second. As a result, when we hit January 1st, 0009, we have marked the completion of our 9th year, and we are now beginning on the 10th year. Finally, when January 1st, 0010 hits, that will mark the completion of our 10th year and that we are now beginning the 11th year.

Now take those years I just gave you, and add 2000 to them. Same rules apply. When it becomes January 1st, 2010, that will mark the completion of 10 years (a decade), and we will be beginning our 11th year, or 1st year of a new decade.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Technically, you are right. 2001-2010 is the first decade of the new millennium, since our current calendar began with year 1. 1-10, 11-20, 21-30. However, that's not how people refer to decades. We usually say "the eighties" or "the nineties" etc. So the next decade would have to be 2000-2009.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 5:20PM thud said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Mighty

Actually, we did start at year 1. Stupid, right?

It doesn't really matter, though. The origins of the current calendar system are inaccurate, so changing the rules midway through it is acceptable.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 7:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
2000 = 1
2001 = 2
2002 = 3
2003 = 4
2004 = 5
2005 = 6
2006 = 7
2007 = 8
2008 = 9
2009 = 10

10 years = a decade.

Or are you going to argue that the year 2000 was part of the 90s and the 20th century, rather than the start of the 21st?
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 9:12PM Crsh said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@PeterD

The year 2000 was part of the 90s, sorry to burst your bubble; it's the media who are screwing the calendar up for their own benefit.

We all get that it sounds better to say that 2000 is the first year of the new millenium, or that 2009 is the last year of the first decade of the 21st century, but it's technically wrong: there's no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.

Of course, every site, news show, publication is making lists titles "best of the 2000s" right now, everybody is ignoring the mathematical rule for marketing reasons, and many are buying into it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 2:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@crsh

lmao are you serious?
By your reasoning, if I'm 30 years old, I'm still in my 'twenties'?

Let's break it down for those blessed with double-digit IQ's shall we:
- By naming a decade the 'nineties', the years contained within would have to contain a '9'
- 1990, 91, 92 ~99 are all years labeled with a '90' decimal value
- Counting 1990 ~99 there are ten decimal places, thus forming a 'decade'
- The year 2000 does not contain a '9', and is the first year of the '00' series of tens, which last through to '09'

How could anybody with anything more than a preschool education not understand this?

lol - wow
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 6:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@crsh: Seriously, I hope you're joking. But going by the tone of your post you're not. Let me know how the flat world theory pans out.
Reply

Posted: Jan 2nd 2010 9:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Everyone who thinks the decade is over...

LMAO.

Since the Gregorian calendar has no ZERO in it (don't start counting yet), we know that the first year (1 AD) started the counting, so we go 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (not 10 years is it?)

So if you think the decade is over, then you are saying that 9 years equals one decade.

But if you are knowledgable, you know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is TEN years. Ten years equals one decade. So, you now know that at the END of 2010 the end of the decade ends.

This also goes for the end of the Millineum. The year 1999 isn't the end. The end of 2000 is the end
Reply

Posted: Jan 2nd 2010 9:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@crsh

While a decade is not officially over until the end of the tenth year (aka 2001-2010) the 90's are (1990-1999) as the 80's are (1980-1989).

The two terms are not synonymous to each other because one is based on a mathematically relation to the starting point of a decade (1 as apposed to a 0)while the other term is a reference to a culture period in society (as in music, politics or financial results)..
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:39PM Blue Meanie said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"the MMO that redefined MMOs"? I think 'refined' would be more accurate

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 5:12PM Xtofer said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Mr. Smite

Your opinion does not equal most others', and your comment is the very best evidence of that fact.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 5:16PM Xtofer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
man, bad comment system is bad. that was obviously meant to reply to a different comment.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 4:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Popularity does not equal quality, and this is the very best evidence of that fact.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW