Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:16:39 +0200, Icon <carnajo@invalid.co.za>
scribbled:
>So...
>It was the second encounter, i.e. the encounter coming next after the
>first in order, after the first encounter that is.
>
>How does the definition prove that it is a sequel?
>It may be the second game in the series, but it is not necessarily a sequel.
Couldn't it be likened to a TV show, where you have multiple episodes
per series, but can have multiple series as well? Series 1, episode 3.
Series 2, episode 1. The second series would be considered a continued
retelling of what was seperated into multiple segments in the first
series. Another example would be fantasy novels. You can certainly
have multiple books in a set, each continuing the story, and then have
a second book which perhaps picks up in the same realm but at a later
date in time to tell a larger storyline.
Or, to quote Eep², it's all relative.
-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:16:39 +0200, Icon <carnajo@invalid.co.za>
scribbled:
>So...
>It was the second encounter, i.e. the encounter coming next after the
>first in order, after the first encounter that is.
>
>How does the definition prove that it is a sequel?
>It may be the second game in the series, but it is not necessarily a sequel.
Couldn't it be likened to a TV show, where you have multiple episodes
per series, but can have multiple series as well? Series 1, episode 3.
Series 2, episode 1. The second series would be considered a continued
retelling of what was seperated into multiple segments in the first
series. Another example would be fantasy novels. You can certainly
have multiple books in a set, each continuing the story, and then have
a second book which perhaps picks up in the same realm but at a later
date in time to tell a larger storyline.
Or, to quote Eep², it's all relative.
-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram