As most people who know me will tell you, I’m a pretty big fan of the Rock Band games, from Harmonix and MTV Games.  So, of course, when I was E3 in June I made damn sure to swing by and learn about what is planned for Rock Band 3, which launches later this year.

I won’t go into of the details, but suffice to say that the game looks incredible.  It feels to me like Harmonix is making all of the right decisions and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.  One of the things that I’m particularly pleased with is that they are continuing to support Rock Band as a “platform,” which means that, in addition to the 70+ new songs that will be included on the disc for Rock Band 3, you will still be able to play all of the previously-released songs (with the exception of the Beatles music) in Rock Band 3.  This means that if you have already purchased them, you will be able to  play all of the songs included on Rock Band 1 and 2, as well as Green Day: Rock Band, and all of the downloadable tracks, as well. 

Together, there will be more than 1000 playable songs available for Rock Band 3 when it launches.  Harmonix and MTV Games illustrated this point by listing all of these songs on a huge wall at E3 (see picture below).

Nonetheless, this functionality seems to be something that relatively few Rock Band owners are aware of.  In fact, I’ve had numerous conversations with other Rock Band owners who under the mistaken impression that there are either a) not many songs available for download, or b) that they are mostly by bands that you’ve never even heard of.  Which brings me to the point of this blog post.  This is an impression that I think MTV/Harmonix really need to address and I had an idea for how they could do so…

(As a disclaimer, I should say that I’m not in PR/marketing and have no idea of the actual viability of this idea. There may be a number of reasons why this simply wouldn’t be possible, or would be prohibitively expensive.  But, my gut says that it should be doable.)  What I suggest is this: the week prior to the launch of the game, MTV/Harmonix should identify the most popular rock-and-roll radio stations in the largest radio markets in America and sponsor a “Rock Band Week,” during which all songs aired by the station would be pulled from the available Rock Band set list. 

I can only imagine the number of people who would have moments listening to the radio when they would say to themselves, “no way!  You can play this in Rock Band?!”  It would also do wonders for overall awareness of the game’s upcoming launch.  Financially, it might not be as expensive as one would expect, as the radio stations would still be able to generate their normal advertising revenue and could even still take requests (so long as they came from the set list).  

Of course, like I said, there may be some reasons why this isn’t practical.  If so, please mention them in your comments.  Otherwise, if someone thinks that this is a great idea and knows someone at MTV Games, feel free to pass this link along.  I will even waive my normal consulting fee.

(This  review should be pretty spoiler-free.)  I picked up my copy of Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty Collector’s Edition on Tuesday, at Target and have spent a pretty considerable amount of time with it since then. 

There’s a lot of value in that big $99 box, particularly from the exclusive Battle.net assets, the inclusion of Starcraft and Brood War on a 2GB USB replica dog tag, a gorgeous and large art book, and an exclusive WoW pet. The game soundtrack, Episode 0 comic book, and behind-the scenes DVD are nice but not as important to me.  My biggest complaint is that there wasn’t a way to get the Collector’s Edition (or some sort of equivalent Digital Collector’s Edition) directly from Blizzard via Battle. Net.  I looked for this option and would have taken it, had it been available. Instead, I spent about an hour calling all over LA to find a Target that had a spare copy.

With regards to the game itself, I’m very impressed and would say that  Blizzard’s perfect record of creating top-quality video games remains untarnished.  So far, I have spent most of my time (about 15 hours) playing the single-player campaign and  am really enjoying it.  From a gameplay perspective, Blizzard made the wise decision to make the single-player experience very different from the multiplayer experience.  By this, I mean that one does not play the single-player missions as one would a multiplayer match.  The missions are much more scripted and frequently catered to a specific unit.  Similarly, many missions have unique circumstances, such as time limits, shifting day/night sequences, optional objectives, unique units, and more.  I also really appreciate that there are so many more units available in the single-player campaign.  This makes sense, considering that these missions don’t really have to be balanced like they would for multiplayer.  I particularly liked that units from the original game (such as Vultures, Goliath’s, and Firebats) that have been dropped from multiplayer are still playable here. 

Perhaps the biggest difference between Starcraft II and previous Blizzard RTS games is the inclusion of “RPG-Lite” mechanics in between missions.  In particular, the ability to contract various mercenary units, spend credits on upgrades for basic units, and use research points to unlock new bonuses and units are all very cool.  While these are not fundamentally revolutionary concepts (having clearly been borrowed from Relic’s Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II), as usual, Blizzard has taken a good idea and refined it to near-perfection. 

Blizzard has also given the player a greater sense of control and agency in between missions.  In addition to the standard (and gorgeous) Blizzard cut-scenes, the player can now explore 4 different sections of the main character (Jim Raynor)’s flagship, they Hyperion.  These four areas are the Armory, Bridge, Cantina, and Laboratory.  In these places the player can watch News broadcasts, initiate conversations with other characters, spend credits/research points, and explore the ship.  Finally, in another apparent nod to Relic’s RTS games, the player is given a limited set of choices with regards to the order in which they choose to pursue the various missions.  Admittedly, these implementations are rather “lightweight,” but they certainly offer more depth and sense of immersion than was available in previous Blizzard RTS games.

The single-player campaign, of course, centers around a story that picks up where the Brood War expansion left off. The story is quite solid, but presumes a pretty significant amount of knowledge of the earlier events.  The included manual does a decent job of summarizing these, but a replay of the original games (which can be easily accomplished considering that they are included on a USB flash drive with the Collector’s Edition of the game) is not a bad idea.

My primary narrative-related complaint has to do with the Raynor character.  At times there is a disconnect between his performance and the way that the other characters in the game treat and speak about him. He seems to be a reasonably upbeat guy with a wry sense of humor most of the time, but he’s also supposed to be this pathologically depressed alcoholic who is pining away for his lost love.  Unfortunately, the game struggles to make these two personalities feel natural for the character, leaving him seeming somewhat schizophrenic. However, to even be having this conversation in the context of a video game is pretty unusual/impressive, and it is definitely a story that has kept me engaged.

I have a love-hate relationship with the moments in the campaign where I’m forced to make big decisions (Tosh vs. Nova; Hansen vs. Protoss).  Similarly, with regards to making the research decisions as you progress up the research tree.  On the one hand, I hate having to worry about whether or not I’m making the “wrong” decision, but I also respect that the game acknowledges that you can’t always have your cake and eat it too.  I have really agonized over some of these and am considering replaying the game to see what happens if i make different choices.  This added replay value is nice.

Of course, Starcraft is probably more well-known as a multiplayer game than a single-player one.  I have not played very many multiplayer matches yet, but I spent a lot of time playing the multiplayer beta, and I’m assuming that it hasn’t changed much.  If that’s the case, I know that I’m going to spend a lot more time with it after I’m done with the campaign.  As always, Blizzard has done an amazing job of balancing the 3 factions.  I’m also really pleased with the improvements that have been made to Battle.net, including the RealID system, built-in voice chat, achievements, improved matchmaking, etc.  Again, nothing revolutionary here, but all very welcome and well-executed.

Visually, I think that the game is stunning.  The level of detail is incredible, the characters (particularly the faces) are remarkably well-exeucted, and even playing on “Medium” visual settings (for the most part) on my laptop, I’m struck by how great the game looks.  I just wish that I could play it on a machine that could handle all the Ultra settings. 

One of the chief complaints that i’ve heard leveled at the game (and I can understand why) is that it’s very similar to the original Starcraft.  I think that this is particularly true in multiplayer, where many of the games conventions actually seem a little bit out-of-date.  Still, for people like me (and most of Korea) who loved the first Starcraft game, this will not be a huge negative.  And I really think that the game has a much more ambitious single-player experience than I had expected, and certainly one that improves significantly on the original game. 

In summary, Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty is a blast.  As is to be expected from Blizzard, it is a highly-polished experience that pefects many of the genre’s best ideas, without taking any major risks.  If you’re a fan of RTS games in general, or this game’s predecessor in particular, you will not be disappointed.

part 3 – Game Company Myths About Films

Myth #1 – Games take longer to make than films.

As with most myths, this idea is rooted in truth.  From the point at which a major (non-animated) film begins principal photography to the day that it is released to theaters, rarely takes as much as 2 years.  The most successful games, however, often take at least this long, from start to finish.  What this myth overlooks, however, is the amount of time that a film can spend in development and pre-production (these are two distinct phases that come prior to filming).  When this time is added to the film’s production and post-production process, films can often take at least as long to make as the most ambitious game.  The challenge for both industries is to find a way to successfully pursue both timelines, in parallel, rather than waiting until it is “too late” to get started on the game.  I believe that the solution to this problem lies in how the projects are financed, but that is a topic for another article.

Myth #2 – Filmmakers don’t respect game developers.

On the contrary, the people who actually create/produce films consistently express a tremendous level of respect and appreciation for their gaming counterparts.  Many are also gamers themselves and most acknowledge that creating games requires a unique set of creative abilities that they do not possess.  This level of intimidation and respect may actually explain why so few film creators have felt comfortable trying to embrace the interactive entertainment medium.  Nonetheless, this “second class” perspective persists amongst game creators for two very simple reasons:

Game developers have had virtually zero exposure to their film creative counterparts during the crucial stages of building a game and making the movie.  Even those game developers who are working on major projects that are slated to release alongside blockbuster films have traditionally been separated from the people creating the film by several layers of individuals who have little (if any) creative/production experience in either field.  It would not be uncommon for the lead designer on a film-based video game to be separated from a film’s director by at least the following people:

1. The internal game development team’s Producer.
2. The external game publisher’s Producer.
3. The film studio’s consumer products/licensing executive.
4. The film production company’s mid-level executive who had been tasked with interacting with the film studio’s consumer products division.

Given all of these people who are concerned, to varying degrees, with ensuring that the game production doesn’t disrupt the film production, it should be unsurprising that the Lead Designer doesn’t feel that the film Director or Producer considers them worth the time of day.  Meanwhile, the film Director or Producer may have no idea that the game’s Lead Designer may have critical questions that only they can truly answer.

Myth #3 – Games based on films have to suck.

This myth effectively encompasses all of the issues that we have discussed so far.  And, if prior performance were necessarily a predictor of future performance, this statement would certainly be true.  Despite nearly 30 years of film-based games (going back at least as far as E.T. and Raiders of the Lost Ark), one would be hard-pressed to identify even a handful of film-based games that are widely considered to be more than mediocre.  There is no reason why this trend must continue to be true, however.  In fact, many successful film properties (Indiana Jones, Aliens, Lord of the Rings, Inglorious Basterds) could be easily correlated to similarly popular games (Uncharted, Halo, Warcraft, Call of Duty).  As we have seen, there are 4 basic reasons why the quality of film-based games has proven so consistently inferior:

1. Talent – Licensees do not hire top-tier game developers for licensed games.
2. Communication – Game developers have extremely limited, if any, access to their creative counterparts, much less the ability to influence the creative direction of the film in order to ensure that it will also make for a great game.
3. Timeline – Game developers almost never have enough time to create high-quality games.
4. Story – The story/narrative elements of the game are afterthoughts for the screenwriters and film directors

When these four, highly-solvable, problems have been addressed, there is nothing preventing film-based games from achieving high levels of quality (and the financial success that accompanies it).

Part 2 – Film Company Myths about Video Games

Myth #1 – Video games based off of films are similar to toys and merchandise based off of films.

Historically, the film industry has treated video games in much the same way that they treat other products that are derived from films, such as toys, lunchboxes, and DVDs.  Most commonly, this has meant licensing the rights to create and market a video game based on the film to an independent company (typically a large video game publisher such as Electronic Arts, Activision, THQ, and others).  The film studio receives an up-front payment for this right and the game publisher assumes the risk associated with creating the game, as well as the potential reward.

As the market for video games has grown and matured many film studios have taken notice of the fact that the lion’s share of the revenue from their film-based game licenses are often left with the game publishers and attempted to build their own in-house game publishing groups.  However, in almost all cases, these efforts have met with limited success.  The explanation for this difficulty is rooted in the studios’ misconceptions about games.  Instead of treating them as high-risk/high-reward, talent-driven, creative endeavors (like films), they have often been left under the purview of the studios’ consumer products, merchandising, or licensing groups.  These organizations are traditionally charged with monetizing the film production group’s creative product, rather than creating their own.  The studios often then compound this problem by leaving the responsibility for the game production in the hands of executives with little to no experience with it.  In some cases, these groups have hired game publishing executives to be directly responsible for production matters, but even then they are often reporting to supervisors from the film production side.

As long as film studios continue to treat their film-based games like toys, they will struggle to achieve the level of quality necessary to realize the highest levels of critical and commercial success.  Some studios, such as Warner Bros. and Disney have begun to show some signs of improvement in this area, but even their successes have been predominantly with original game titles, not those that are directly linked to upcoming films.

Myth #2 – Gamers are mostly teenage males.

While this myth may have been true 15-20 years ago, the first decade of the new millennium saw a remarkable expansion of the video game market.  Today, the average age of a “gamer” is over 30 years, and most game-players are actually female.  Admittedly, much of the industry’s revenue is still derived from more “hardcore” gamers, but even these are now predominantly over the age of 20.  Given the maturity of both the industry and its audience, as well as the intense level of competition, it should be unsurprising that only the best games achieve the highest levels of financial success.  It is no coincidence that the most commercially-successful game franchises (Call of Duty, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, The Sims, God of War, and more) also receive consistently excellent critical reviews.  Today, the “big money” comes not from selling a T-rated game to a 14 year-old boy and/or his mother during the holidays, but from selling a AAA-quality M-Rated game to at 21-34 year-old.  This means that a truly successful game needs more than a “hot license.” It actually has to be very, very, good.

Myth #3 – Sequels are never as good as “the original.”

Sadly, this statement is often true when referring to films, which explains why it seems so intuitive to filmmakers.  However, there are two fundamental reasons why it is much less frequently true of games. 

Reason #1) The underlying technology of game development continues to advance and evolve at with tremendous speed.  At its core, this means that what games are capable of, as well as the tools available to game creators, tend to steadily improve over time. 

Reason #2) Unlike films, the most valuable and elusive aspect of game development is not an original and compelling narrative, but instead it is a concept simply known as the “fun factor.” In fact, some of the most successful games are often guilty of having some of the most derivative, predictable, and poorly-delivered narrative experiences in entertainment.  (Not to mention the many successful games that have no narrative at all).  The “fun factor” in a game is something that is zeroed-in on.  It is reached through an iterative process that rarely (if ever) “ends,” and often spans multiple game releases. 

It is for both of these reasons that games often see increased critical and commercial success in successive iterations. 

Myth #4 – Film celebrities are more “valuable” than game celebrities.

It is often said that one of the major differences between the two industries is that “there are no real ‘celebrities’ in games.” People who make this statement are correctly identifying that there are few, if any, individuals in the game industry with the kind of global name recognition and fan following that is quite common amongst film stars and directors.  What they are overlooking, however, is that the “celebrities” in the game world are not individuals, but instead the game development studios themselves.  Whereas the names Paramount, Warner Bros., Sony, and Universal, tell their audiences very little about what can be expected from their product, gamers know that when they purchase a game by Blizzard, Bioware, Epic, id, Valve, and many others that they can expect a truly top-notch gaming experience.   In effect, these developers’ names are at least as valuable as those of major film stars/directors, and can be counted upon to bank tens of millions of dollars of revenue at the gaming “box office.” Perhaps for this very reason, companies of this caliber rarely choose to work on film-based games.  Instead, the film industry has consistently chosen the game industry equivalent of releasing only independent product, using relatively unknown stars, directors, and production talent.  Here is just one example of the game’s industry’s acknowledgement of the importance of the development studio’s name recognition and identity.

Part 1

It is a pretty well-established axiom, that “movie games suck.”  Contrary to popular belief, however, the explanation for this phenomenon is not a mystery.  Until very recently, the relationship between game companies and movie studios could be defined as a classic one of licensor/licensee.  This should not be surprising, given that twenty-plus years ago, when movie games were first being made, gaming technology was extremely limited, audiences were predominantly young children, and movies took far longer to produce than video games did.  (Not to mention the fact that game development budgets were a fraction of their movie counterparts, as were their revenues).

Given these realities, the film companies waited until they greenlit a film project for production and then sold the rights to create a video game, based on that film, to a game publisher (in much the way that any other merchandising rights are sold).  In fact, it was usually the same consumer products group that was responsible managing classic toy and merchandising relationships who found themselves representing the film studio’s video game interests.

For the film industry, this means that the only individuals with direct exposure to the game companies have been licensing professionals, usually far-removed from the actual film-creation process, and experts in neither game nor film creation.  These individuals, thus, are poorly situated to represent the filmmakers’  interests.  Moreover, because the film studio has limited, if any, profit participation in the success of the game, these individuals are primarily concerned with ensuring that nothing related to the game could possibly disrupt anything related to the film.

Similarly, because they have no long-term vested interest in the success of the film franchise, the game publishers simply hand-off the game development responsibilities to a team of developers whose top priority is to ship something in time for the launch of the film.  The publishers reserve their most talented teams for the intellectual properties that they own, instead giving the licensed projects to the developers with the best blend of dependability and affordability.

Given this working dynamic, it should not be surprising that there are relatively few individuals in either industry who truly understand the other.  The result is a series of tragic myths and misunderstandings that have formed on both sides of the business and creative relationship.  In the next two parts of this series, I will outline some of the most significant of these misunderstandings and try to help shed a little light on their origins.  Stay tuned!

I saw Iron Man 2 on Saturday night, and generally enjoyed it.  It wasn’t a perfect movie, nor did it have the same sense of “freshness” that the first one had, but it was a fun romp with some good lines and great special effects.  All of that being said, I have some questions that I’d like to see answered:

SPOILER WARNING!!!

1. Why didn’t Vanko make the drones out of the same much-more-durable material that he made his own suit out of?
2. How does the new element that Stark creates magically cure him of palladium blood poisoning?
3. Since said new element is supposed to be “the source of limitless energy that will make nuclear power look like a AA battery,” is it safe to assume that the world’s energy crisis will be completely alleviated in Iron Man 3?
4. Why does Stark seem to get weaker or more energetic, based on how his chest-battery is doing?  If I recall from Iron Man 1, that battery was simply powering an electromagnet that was preventing a piece of shrapnel is his body from reaching his heart.  Is it now doing more than that?
5. How is Rhodes able to use the silver suit that he hijackes from Stark’s basement?  Did Stark conveniently create a version for people who don’t have radioactive batteries embedded in their chest?
6. Why does Howard Stark go to so much trouble to hide the information from his son that he apparently wants him to find? 
7. Why does Vanko, who seems to have no qualms about killing innocent bystanders, not direct the drones to just shoot the freaking people at the Stark Expo?
8. What happened to the shot of Iron Man talking to Pepper Pots and getting a kiss from her on the helmet, before jumping out of the plane at the beginning of the movie, that we saw so many times in the trailer?    Was it too much of a reminder that Stark was supposed to have fallen in love with Pepper at the end of the last movie, and therefore make all of his unashamed flirting with Scarlett seem a lot sleazier?
9. Why are we supposed to believe that Howard Stark had Anton Vanko deported when he found out that Vanko wanted to use the arc reactor technology to get rich?  Isn’t that what Stark was doing anyway, with all his other developments?
10. How does Black Widow know how to turn-off and reboot War Machine’s suit using Vanko’s custom software as soon as she looks at it?  If it’s that straightforward, why doesn’t she use it to turn off all of the drones and/or Vanko’s suit?

Well, it’s time for the LA AIDS Walk, once again.  As last year, I will be walking with Team Paramount to help raise money for this important cause.  I know that not everyone has the time and energy to participate, but hopefully you can spare a few bucks to sponsor me in the walk.  No donation is too small.  If you can do so, please consider donating via my personal fundraising page, here.  Thanks very much, in advance, for your generosity.

My good friend, college classmate, and debate teammate, Judd Legum, is running for State delegate in Maryland’s 30th district.  The election is next year (2010) but it’s very important for candidates to show strong fund-raising early, to demonstrate that they are serious contenders, and Judd is definitely that.

Of course, you might wonder why I would ask you to support a politician who is running for a race that is probably not even in your State, much less your district.  Well, there are a couple of reasons.  First of all, I think that Judd is exactly the kind of candidate that we should want to see in office, anywhere in America.  He is extremely smart, hard-working, progressive, articulate, and ethical.  Perhaps more importantly, I believe that this is just the firs step on what will be a long and successful career of public service for Judd, and I want to do everything I can to help him get started.

For these reasons, I have already donated to Judd’s campaign, and I encourage you to consider doing the same.  Donations don’t need to be large in order to be helpful, even $20 can make a difference in a race like this.   To donate, just follow this link:

Thanks very much for your time and consideration.  Here’s a little bit more about Judd, in his own words:

Who is Judd Legum?

• Annapolis native. Born and raised in the district.
• Pomona College alum, class of 2000.
• Lawyer. Cum laude graduate of Georgetown University. Currently in private practice in Annapolis.
• Policy wonk. Three years at a the nation’s premiere progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress, as research director.
• Political expert. National research director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Helped prepare Senator Clinton for 20+ debates.
• Blogger. Created one of the most highly trafficked progressive political blogs, ThinkProgress. Currently blogs on Maryland policy and politics.

What is Judd running for?

• State delegate in Maryland’s 30th district. The election is in 2010. Map here: http://tinyurl.com/d30map
• There are three delegates for District 30: Speaker Mike Busch (D), Virginia Claggett (D) and Ron George (R). George is in his first term and won in 2006 by just a few dozen votes. He is one of the most conservative delegates in the General Assembly.

What’s Judd’s agenda?

• Clean Bay. The 25-year, multi-billion dollar effort to restore the Bay has been a failure. If we don’t act quickly, the Bay will soon pass the point of no return. This means standing up to powerful special interests such as agribusiness, which remains the number one source of pollution in the Bay. This is more than an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue. Much of Maryland’s economy is dependent upon the health of the Bay.
• Clean Energy. Maryland faces an energy crisis. Absent policy changes the state will face rolling blackouts starting in 2011. Marylanders have also seen their energy bills skyrocket. We need to move aggressively on three fronts: 1) energy efficiency programs, which can reduce the need for new generation and reduce costs for consumers,  2) investment in transmission which will allow more power to flow into the state at reduced costs. 3) new sources of clean energy including wind, solar and biofuels.
• Clean Government. He’s not accepting money from lobbyists or PACs. Will crack down on lavish parties for legislators financed by special interests. In a recent 90 day session, lobbyists spent $1 million wining and dining members of the General Assembly.

I’d like to take a minute to tell you all about a Kiva, a non-profit that allows you to lend as little as $25 to a specific low-income entrepreneur across the globe. You have probably heard about this process, which is called "micro-lending" and for which Mohammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

You choose who to lend to – whether a baker in Afghanistan, a goat herder in Uganda, a farmer in Peru, a restaurateur in Cambodia, or a tailor in Iraq – and as they repay their loan, you get your money back. It’s a powerful and sustainable way to empower someone right now to lift themselves out of poverty.

At first I was a little tentative to use the site and started out with a small amount of money, but I have now been using it for about 2 years and have successfully executed several small loans. Of the 5 loans that I’ve done, 4 have been repaid, and one was a loss, due to fraud on the part of the company responsible for dispersing the money locally. As I understand it, this is an extremely uncommon phenomenon and it has really only served to further convince me that the organization itself is doing legitimate work. (After all, lending is never without risk). You don’t just have to take my word for it, either. Here are some articles about Kiva:

• CNN.com
• Wall Street Journal
• More

Every time I lend, I put a little bit more money into the pool. When it gets paid back, I send it back out, and then wait. So far, so good. You can hook your account up to Paypal, which makes adding funds very easy.

I’m particularly fond of this process because it is sustainable. Instead of creating a cycle of dependency where people in developing nations are given handouts, which will inevitably need to be replenished, they are given loans that have real, substantial value and with which they are investing in the growth of their local economies. When the money is repaid, it can be re-loaned, which is a much more appealing cycle, if you ask me.

So, I encourage you to give it a try and consider spreading the word. If you do decide to participate, please be sure to tell them that I sent you when you register. My email address is: bhoyt47@hotmail.com. Thanks very much for your time.

This video was forwarded to me by my friend, Peter Oliphant, about a week ago.  It is a rather lengthy, but totally worth watching.  It’s a little old, I guess, but I had never seen it before.  As described at Google Video, where I saw it:

This is the breathtaking story of Daniel Tammet. A twenty-something with extraordinary mental abilities, Daniel is one of the world’s few savants. He can do calculations to 100 decimal places in his head, and learn a language in a week. This documentary follows Daniel as he travels to America to meet the scientists who are convinced he may hold the key to unlocking similar abilities in everyone. He also meets the world’s most famous savant, the man who inspired Dustin Hoffman’s character in the Oscar winning film ‘Rain Man’. (2005)