Ok, I did partly pick some lesser known excellent games here which I have rated 5 stars.
This is fun 
I assume you mean
Winter Wonderland by Laura Knauth (although I donāt see your rating on IFDB)
and not
Winter Wonderland by Tim Walsha and Simon Lipscomb (which you have rated 2stars)
?
This is fun!
I see that you put the Tim Walsha/Simon Lipscomb version of Winter Wonderland on a āBest of The Quill, Paw and GACā list, so unless you say otherwise Iām assuming thatās the one that you mean since I donāt see a rating from you for the Laura Knuth version. [EDIT: You said otherwise below!] I think the same game is up on the Internet Archive with a web-based ZX Spectrum emulator at Winter Wonderland [a] : Incentive Software : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive, which means it would meet the eligibility requirement if a āplay onlineā link is added to its IFDB page. (There may also be versions for the BBC Micro (?) and C64 there, too.)
However, although IFDB lists it as āformerly commercial,ā Iām not seeing any clear evidence that the game has been formally released by the rights holder (Incentive Software) for free play, so Iād have to rule it out without more information. You can either choose a replacement game or present some evidence that a playable version is legal.
You should have also posted the part where I said that no apology was necessary and that although I respected and approve of the urge to put genuine rarities under consideration, it was necessary to reject them to keep the rules maximally egalitarian. (No harm, no foul in my book.)
I think everyone on the thread appreciates being alerted to some of these oldies-but-goodies, even if they donāt meet the requirements for candidates.
You are right, it is the one by Laura Knauth. I put a review here: :: CASA :: Winter Wonderland - Review
Forgot to add an IFDB rating, thanks!
No, it is the game by Laura Knauth, sorry for being unclear. See e.g my review here,: :: CASA :: Winter Wonderland - Review
It was Nomad that added the other game to the GAC poll.
Ah, read that wrong. It was your poll, but not your pick.
I have all five of your picks correctly registered now.
Iām sorry. I thought that was obvious in your reply (nĀ°9) to my first list. You presented a well argued case. I didnāt want to quote your PM in the public forum, so I posted my own as a general explanation to all on this thread that I had changed my mind yet again.
To be clear, your response was fair and welcoming, and I understand and agree with the reasoning completely.
Seems to me that thereās a misunderstanding between Otis and Rovarsson; I parsed and generalised the rule on old dos games as āthe story file must run on a native interpreter, not thru an emulatorā, and last time I checked, agility (and its gargoyle version) read and run correctly the story files in the old multi-file AGT format (the .d$$ and various .da*) so, I think thereās a substantial ambiguity in the rule, or is only my interpretation ?
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
I have to admit that I never even thought of 8-bit era native software as a possibility until rovarrsonās picks ā if I had, I would have included some guidelines in the FAQ and not been caught flat-footed.
Iām glad it came up, though, because it seems like quite a few of these types of games are available to play via web-based emulators on the Internet Archive, and I think it would add value to both IFDB and the Internet Archive if more IFDB pages pointed to the instances found there. (If the emulator code is open source, maybe even IF Archive could add its own āplay onlineā option for them.) For now, itās clear that the Internet Archiveās hosting definitely opens up more possible candidates for the tournament, which is a good thing.
The FAQ above has been updated re: āaccessibilityā questions. The guiding principle is not so much about the existence of a native interpreter as it is about ease-of-access for non-technical players. Iām in work-it-out-as-we-go mode on this aspect, so the only thing firm is that games that run on multi-platform standard interpreters (e.g. Gargoyle) and games that run in web interfaces (including web-based emulators) definitely qualify. People should feel free to nominate whatever they like; weāll handle questions as they arise.
As of right now, including nominations via PM, there are a total of 66 unique candidate games that have been nominated.
Four of the candidates have each been independently nominated twice and will get extra tickets in the lottery drawing:
The current pool of candidates covers a wide range of genres and is an eclectic mix of old and new, obscure and better-known. It should make for very interesting matchups.
Seven people registered as PCT Fans have not yet sent in any picks, and there is still more than a week left for new players to enter their own candidates.
The fan Group is Currently at 22 members. That doesnāt seem like a lot as the players probably do not have time to play all the games. Do you know how many different people voted last year? If lack of votes becomes a problem, perhaps have a plan B to open up to non-members or perhaps just stick to the rules and revise the rules for next year?
Iām going though old comps, XYZZY nominations, and Bafās guide reviews looking for nominations on the theme of āgames that made a splash way-back-when but have since unjustly fallen into obscurityā. My two definite nominees so far are Augmented Fourth and The Edifice. If I fail to come up with three more before the deadline then Iāll throw in a second for All Things Devours which isnāt exactly obscure but is just a uniquely awesome game.
The actual requirement to enable voting is basically a pair of clicks; membership is automatic, and I donāt think it will present a significant obstacle to anyone who wants to participate as a player. As you note, weāre currently at 22 registered fans ā not bad for day 3, and at the end of a low-traffic holiday week!
On that note: Welcome mathbrush, prevtenet, CMG, bg, ausgerechnet, Piergiorgio_d_errico and dfranke, all of whom have signed up in the last couple of days.
I produced some statistics for the first four rounds of FIFP, and the average number of votes per match was usually around 15. From what I can see, it looks like the number of fans participating is on track to be comparable, but weāll just have to wait and see how that translates into match votes. (Iād make a prediction, but I often find that Iām surprised. For example, I didnāt expect that so many people would opt for public nominations of their candidates, though I think itās fun.)
Also, Iāve updated the FAQ to correct some errors and answer some nomination-related questions that have come up. Specifically:
The deadline for nominations (and nomination updates) will be Saturday Jan 11 11:59 PM as stated in the top post, not noon that day as originally (and erroneously) listed in the FAQ. (Once the nomination deadline has passed, it will remain possible to sign up as a new player/voter throughout the entire tournament.)
Itās now made explicit that anyone can change their nominations at any time up until that deadline.
Itās now made explicit that authors can nominate their own works.
The question about the overall schedule has been reformatted to be easier to see calendar information, and the change from two-week to one-week segments is now correctly shown as beginning with round 3 instead of round 4.
As of right now, including nominations via PM, there are a total of 80 unique candidate games that have been nominated.
Five of the candidates have each been independently nominated twice and will get extra tickets in the lottery drawing:
Six people registered as PCT Fans have not yet sent in any picks, and there is still a week left for new players to enter their own candidates.
Welcome to new player Lazzah, who has signed up since yesterday. Weāre now at 23 registered fans!
FAQ Update:
Iām making this separate post so that I can add an event for nominations to the forum calendar.
My probably-final nominations (otistdog, I think you have these recorded already) are:
I was a little shocked when I realized that it makes sense to nominate Christminster for this competition, because at least according to my own headcanon, itās the secondmost-seminal game of the IF renaissance, right after Curses!. I assumed it already had skads of awards and would be ineligible for already having been in FIFP. It turns out that it has zero awards, fewer plays and reviews than many much-more-recent games, and not all that many mentions coming up in a forum search. I must have been greatly overestimating how well-known it is.
As of right now, including nominations via PM, there are a total of 89 unique candidate games that have been nominated.
Six of the candidates have each been independently nominated twice and will get extra tickets in the lottery drawing:
Five people registered as PCT Fans have not yet sent in any picks, new players can sign up at any time (see the FAQ for details), and there are still six days left before the nomination deadline.
Welcome to new PCT Fan Warrigal, who has signed up since yesterday. Weāre now at 24 registered fans!
FAQ Update:
Iād like to nominate my game,
as well as
Greg
As of right now, including nominations via PM, there are a total of 93 unique candidate games that have been nominated.
Nine candidates have been independently nominated more than once and will get extra tickets in the lottery drawing. These are:
Four people registered as PCT Fans have not yet sent in any picks, new players can sign up at any time (see the FAQ for details), and there are still five days left before the nomination deadline.
Welcome to new PCT Fan simpsong00, who has signed up since yesterday. Weāre now at 25 registered fans!