‘The requested page could not be found.’
Played during the Backloggd’s Game of the Week (Jan. 10 – Jan. 16, 2023).
Omnipedia, according to its creator, Tony Hsiung, 'follow[s] the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia, which was truly irreplaceable'. This opening statement, nestled in the description of Omnipedia, sums up the entire approach of Neurocracy. Nowadays, Wikipedia is one of the most convenient sources of information; if it never replaces a real encyclopaedia or a long dive into various articles, the site appears as a convenient starting point to get familiar with a given topic. Whether it is to obtain some basic knowledge of a physics concept or to check the biography of a person, the site fulfils most of the needs that one may encounter in everyday life. The hidden side of Wikipedia is its collaborative aspect. Those who have contributed to the platform know that changes to a page are subject to peer review, which, while not as effective as that of academia, ensures the overall consistency of the online encyclopaedia. A corollary of this situation is the existence of editing wars. On certain controversial topics, some pages of Wikipedia can be protected to prevent disputes from escalating. Regular users are familiar with the rule of three deletions in twenty-four hours, which is the minimum threshold to qualify as an edit war. One of the most recent examples is the page on the Russian-Ukrainian war, which echoes the long-running controversy over the spelling of Kyiv [1].
Neurocracy plays on this tension, even if the player may miss the intention, at first glance. The title presents itself as a dive – a somewhat misleading assertion, as freedom to explore the different pages is not that large – into the Omnipedia of 2049, the successor to Wikipedia, with the goal of unravelling part of the mystery behind the assassination of Xu Shaoyong and Yuri Golitsyn. The player quickly learns that Xu was an extremely powerful figure – a sort of de facto leader of the 2049 China – whose economic empire has grown particularly large since his colloid technology, microchips capable of reading and regulating an individual's cerebral activity, was adopted by the majority of the world. The cyberpunk spin on the story is reminiscent of the nanotechnology of Deus Ex (2000) and the distinct references to current events reinforce this social fiction aspect. The rise of the far right and the Covid pandemic are prominent starting points for the events in the universe, which materialise in more severe forms in the 2040s, which Neurocracy describes. The progression of AIs and creeping hyper-capitalism take strong forms through projects that seem like nightmares, but easily echo the contemporary fascination with ChatGPT or art generators. More perniciously, the game also hints at the information wars being waged through the media and the difficulty of creating independent spaces, free from the deleterious power of billionaires.
On Omnipedia, it is only a shadow of Wikipedia that the player can explore. The majority of articles are only summarised in hover-over texts, full access being inaccessible. This is because the articles are written by artificial intelligences and access is only allowed after verification by human experts. In this respect, the ideal of neutrality of Wikipedia is reflected in Omnipedia, but in a rather more distorted form. The power of the community has disappeared, in favour of experts, whose ideological position and hidden agendas are largely open to question. Cold_Confort had rightly identified the sometimes unfactual aspect of the articles and the surprising shifts in tone from one page to the next. While I agree with him on some of the elements, which sometimes draw on somewhat crude and implausible satire, it seems to me that the questionable style of some of the articles only highlights the fact that several figures are fighting in the shadows for control of Omnipedia, with the intention of presenting the assassination of Xu and Golitsyn in a specific light. Suspects are strangely put forward, while key elements are suppressed from one day to the next, as if it were necessary to hide the truth. Initially, only Hsiung can approve changes to a page, but it is clear that the situation is more complicated than it seems. When after hours of reading, for the first time, the player is confronted with a page that has just been deleted, the error message conveys a singular dread, like the cruel sneer of a criminal who has deceived the investigators. There is something surprisingly powerful about the vague silhouette of a person standing behind a half-drawn curtain – the certainty that someone is there, but impossible to reach.
To explore these transformations of the Omnipedia pages, it is necessary to compare their successive versions over the ten days following October 1, 2049. This can be an insurmountable task and is understandable only in the context of the publication of the title. Neurocracy was a ten-week collaborative adventure, during which participants could discuss the latest pages added or edited, to propose their theories on the assassination and all the other events surrounding it. A visit to the Neurocracy Discord gives a glimpse of an exceptional collaborative effort, which is difficult to replicate. Some projects, such as Cicada 3301 (2012), may be similar, with its mysterious conspiracy aesthetic. On the French-language Internet, a legendary website was Ouverture Facile (2005), now unavailable, which offered puzzles of increasing difficulty, combining mathematics, steganography, computer science and many other puzzles. Without being as difficult as Cicada 3301, the project generated a very particular craze and many discussions on numerous forums of that time. To experience Neurocracy without this social dimension – something that cannot be replicated today – damages the game's design. Whereas Excalibur (2021) shines with its fake time capsule nature, Neurocracy thrives primarily on the interaction that players have beyond the game. Such an experience suffers from the passage of time.
For the player of 2023, all that remains is the universe and the mystery to be solved, but with no real solution to be reached or verified. The world of 2049 is filled with technological and biological anxieties, natural disasters, corporations playing a ruthless chess game, alliances between fascism and capitalism, already felt in the present world. Everyone will have their own perception of these events and the references to current pop-culture will come across with varying degrees of success, depending on the satire one is willing to accept from the game. Clues are scattered throughout the articles, in the names and dates mentioned. A reconstruction of the timeline of the 2040s allows the player to reconstruct the different factions in this universe, what they know and their alliances. In between the lines, there are many things left unsaid that guide the player closer to the truth – or at least a part of it. The footnotes and pictures also provide important information and contribute to the graphic identity of Neurocracy. If one is interested in this assassination story against the backdrop of greedy corporations, technological progress and pandemic, the project is a solid experience. However, the only reward the player will have is within themselves and nowhere else.
Neurocracy is certainly a fascinating experiment. I had as much pleasure exploring Omnipedia as I did the game's Discord, the discussions greatly enriching the elements I discovered when I read the various articles. It must be said that the mystery remains unsolved. If a general consensus seems to have formed around the culprit, many questions remain unanswered and the community's explanations are still at the hypothesis stage. There is a charm in an interactive experience that offers neither victory nor defeat. The end comes when the player is no longer interested, when they have something better to do with their time. This poetic approach to game interaction has both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, Neurocracy proves to be a unique and unforgettable experience for all those who managed to embrace the concept and immerse themselves in the story, far more complex than it seems. On the other hand, the title immediately alienates any audience that does not find anything interesting in this project. One must at least acknowledge a degree of audacity in this enterprise.
__________
[1] Stephen Harrison, ‘How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia’, on Slate, 01/03/2022, consulted on 13/01/2023.
Played during the Backloggd’s Game of the Week (Jan. 10 – Jan. 16, 2023).
Omnipedia, according to its creator, Tony Hsiung, 'follow[s] the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia, which was truly irreplaceable'. This opening statement, nestled in the description of Omnipedia, sums up the entire approach of Neurocracy. Nowadays, Wikipedia is one of the most convenient sources of information; if it never replaces a real encyclopaedia or a long dive into various articles, the site appears as a convenient starting point to get familiar with a given topic. Whether it is to obtain some basic knowledge of a physics concept or to check the biography of a person, the site fulfils most of the needs that one may encounter in everyday life. The hidden side of Wikipedia is its collaborative aspect. Those who have contributed to the platform know that changes to a page are subject to peer review, which, while not as effective as that of academia, ensures the overall consistency of the online encyclopaedia. A corollary of this situation is the existence of editing wars. On certain controversial topics, some pages of Wikipedia can be protected to prevent disputes from escalating. Regular users are familiar with the rule of three deletions in twenty-four hours, which is the minimum threshold to qualify as an edit war. One of the most recent examples is the page on the Russian-Ukrainian war, which echoes the long-running controversy over the spelling of Kyiv [1].
Neurocracy plays on this tension, even if the player may miss the intention, at first glance. The title presents itself as a dive – a somewhat misleading assertion, as freedom to explore the different pages is not that large – into the Omnipedia of 2049, the successor to Wikipedia, with the goal of unravelling part of the mystery behind the assassination of Xu Shaoyong and Yuri Golitsyn. The player quickly learns that Xu was an extremely powerful figure – a sort of de facto leader of the 2049 China – whose economic empire has grown particularly large since his colloid technology, microchips capable of reading and regulating an individual's cerebral activity, was adopted by the majority of the world. The cyberpunk spin on the story is reminiscent of the nanotechnology of Deus Ex (2000) and the distinct references to current events reinforce this social fiction aspect. The rise of the far right and the Covid pandemic are prominent starting points for the events in the universe, which materialise in more severe forms in the 2040s, which Neurocracy describes. The progression of AIs and creeping hyper-capitalism take strong forms through projects that seem like nightmares, but easily echo the contemporary fascination with ChatGPT or art generators. More perniciously, the game also hints at the information wars being waged through the media and the difficulty of creating independent spaces, free from the deleterious power of billionaires.
On Omnipedia, it is only a shadow of Wikipedia that the player can explore. The majority of articles are only summarised in hover-over texts, full access being inaccessible. This is because the articles are written by artificial intelligences and access is only allowed after verification by human experts. In this respect, the ideal of neutrality of Wikipedia is reflected in Omnipedia, but in a rather more distorted form. The power of the community has disappeared, in favour of experts, whose ideological position and hidden agendas are largely open to question. Cold_Confort had rightly identified the sometimes unfactual aspect of the articles and the surprising shifts in tone from one page to the next. While I agree with him on some of the elements, which sometimes draw on somewhat crude and implausible satire, it seems to me that the questionable style of some of the articles only highlights the fact that several figures are fighting in the shadows for control of Omnipedia, with the intention of presenting the assassination of Xu and Golitsyn in a specific light. Suspects are strangely put forward, while key elements are suppressed from one day to the next, as if it were necessary to hide the truth. Initially, only Hsiung can approve changes to a page, but it is clear that the situation is more complicated than it seems. When after hours of reading, for the first time, the player is confronted with a page that has just been deleted, the error message conveys a singular dread, like the cruel sneer of a criminal who has deceived the investigators. There is something surprisingly powerful about the vague silhouette of a person standing behind a half-drawn curtain – the certainty that someone is there, but impossible to reach.
To explore these transformations of the Omnipedia pages, it is necessary to compare their successive versions over the ten days following October 1, 2049. This can be an insurmountable task and is understandable only in the context of the publication of the title. Neurocracy was a ten-week collaborative adventure, during which participants could discuss the latest pages added or edited, to propose their theories on the assassination and all the other events surrounding it. A visit to the Neurocracy Discord gives a glimpse of an exceptional collaborative effort, which is difficult to replicate. Some projects, such as Cicada 3301 (2012), may be similar, with its mysterious conspiracy aesthetic. On the French-language Internet, a legendary website was Ouverture Facile (2005), now unavailable, which offered puzzles of increasing difficulty, combining mathematics, steganography, computer science and many other puzzles. Without being as difficult as Cicada 3301, the project generated a very particular craze and many discussions on numerous forums of that time. To experience Neurocracy without this social dimension – something that cannot be replicated today – damages the game's design. Whereas Excalibur (2021) shines with its fake time capsule nature, Neurocracy thrives primarily on the interaction that players have beyond the game. Such an experience suffers from the passage of time.
For the player of 2023, all that remains is the universe and the mystery to be solved, but with no real solution to be reached or verified. The world of 2049 is filled with technological and biological anxieties, natural disasters, corporations playing a ruthless chess game, alliances between fascism and capitalism, already felt in the present world. Everyone will have their own perception of these events and the references to current pop-culture will come across with varying degrees of success, depending on the satire one is willing to accept from the game. Clues are scattered throughout the articles, in the names and dates mentioned. A reconstruction of the timeline of the 2040s allows the player to reconstruct the different factions in this universe, what they know and their alliances. In between the lines, there are many things left unsaid that guide the player closer to the truth – or at least a part of it. The footnotes and pictures also provide important information and contribute to the graphic identity of Neurocracy. If one is interested in this assassination story against the backdrop of greedy corporations, technological progress and pandemic, the project is a solid experience. However, the only reward the player will have is within themselves and nowhere else.
Neurocracy is certainly a fascinating experiment. I had as much pleasure exploring Omnipedia as I did the game's Discord, the discussions greatly enriching the elements I discovered when I read the various articles. It must be said that the mystery remains unsolved. If a general consensus seems to have formed around the culprit, many questions remain unanswered and the community's explanations are still at the hypothesis stage. There is a charm in an interactive experience that offers neither victory nor defeat. The end comes when the player is no longer interested, when they have something better to do with their time. This poetic approach to game interaction has both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, Neurocracy proves to be a unique and unforgettable experience for all those who managed to embrace the concept and immerse themselves in the story, far more complex than it seems. On the other hand, the title immediately alienates any audience that does not find anything interesting in this project. One must at least acknowledge a degree of audacity in this enterprise.
__________
[1] Stephen Harrison, ‘How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Wikipedia’, on Slate, 01/03/2022, consulted on 13/01/2023.