document_title: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege

question_text: how long is a rainbow six siege game

question_tokens: how long is a rainbow six siege game

text: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege

text: Gameplay

text: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege is a first-person shooter game, in which players control an operator from the Rainbow team. Different operators have different nationalities, weapons, and gadgets.[1] The game features an asymmetrical structure whereby the teams are not always balanced in their ability choices.[2] The Counter Terrorism Units (CTUs) available for play include the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the British SAS, German GSG-9, Russian Spetsnaz and French GIGN, each of which has four operators per unit (other units were later added through downloadable content, see below). Players also have access to a "Recruit" operator who can choose from a more flexible assortment of equipment at the expense of having no unique gadget. Players pick an operator from any unit before a round starts, and are not allowed to change operators during a round. An in-game shop allows players to purchase operators using the in-game currency, "Renown", which is earned at the end of matches from actions performed in-game. The different gameplay modes award renown at different rates, with ranked matches offering the largest renown multiplier potential per match. Renown can also be affected with the addition of "boosters" which give the player a 100% increase in all renown earned for 24 hours (real time not play time). . Renown can be used to purchase weapon customization options, which allow players to put attachments such as silencers and scopes on their weapons.[3] A premium credit, known as "R6 credits" can also be purchased using real world currency to get operators quicker in-game, or other cosmetic.[4]

text: In ranked play, when a round begins, the attackers choose one of several spawn points from which to launch their attack. The attackers are then given control over wheeled drones to scout the map in search of enemy operators and targets,[5] while the defenders can use security cameras to spot the attackers.[6] Maps in the game are designed to encourage close quarters combat, and players cannot respawn until the end of a round. Defenders can also put up destructible barricades and reinforce walls to make them indestructible unless you have an appropriate operator. Players who were killed by opponents can enter "Support Mode", which allows them to gain access to drone's cameras and security cameras so that they can continue to contribute to their team by informing them of opponent locations and activities.[7][8] Matches generally last only a few minutes.[9] Teamwork and cooperation is encouraged in Siege, and players need to take advantage of their different abilities in order to complete the objective and defeat the enemy team.[5] Communication between players is also encouraged.[5][10] The game also has a spectator mode, which allows players to observe a match from different angles.[11]

text: The game features heavy emphasis on environmental destruction[12][13] using a procedural destruction system. Players can break structures by planting explosives on them, or shoot walls to make bullet holes.[14] Players may gain tactical advantages through environmental destruction, and the system aims at encouraging players to utilize creativity and strategy.[14][15] A bullet-penetration system is featured, in which bullets that pass through structures deal less damage to enemies.[13] In addition to destruction, players can also set up heavy-duty fortifications on walls and deployable shields around them for protection; these can be destroyed through breaching or by utilizing operator specific melee-weapons like sledgehammers.[16] In order to stop attackers' advance, defenders can place traps like barbed-wire and explosive laserwire traps around the maps.[17] Vertical space is a key gameplay element in the game's maps: players can destroy ceilings and floors using breach charges and can ambush enemies by rappelling through windows.[5] Powerful weapons like grenades and breach charges are valuable, as only limited numbers can be used in a round.[9]

text: Modes

text: At launch, the game featured 11 maps[18] and 5 different gameplay modes. With the downloadable content (DLC) – an additional four maps from season one and the first map from season two[needs update] – there are currently 16 maps with two more slated for release by January 2018. The gameplay modes featured include:

text:
Hostage: a competitive multiplayer mode, in which the attackers must extract the hostage from the defenders, while the defenders must prevent the hostage from being rescued. A secondary manner of winning can occur if the attacking or defending team accidentally damages the hostage, causing the hostage to "down"; if the opposing team can prevent revival of the hostage, and the hostage bleeds-out and dies, they will win the round.[19]
Bomb: a competitive multiplayer mode, in which the attackers are tasked with locating and defusing one of two bombs. The defenders must stop the attackers by killing all of them or destroying the defuser.[20] If all attackers are killed after the defuser is planted, the defuser must still be destroyed for a defending victory.
Secure Area: a competitive multiplayer mode, in which the defenders must protect a room with biohazard containers, while the attackers must fight their way in. The match ends when all players from one team are killed or the biohazard container is secured by the attackers when there are no defenders in the room.[21]
Terrorist Hunt: a solo[22] or cooperative multiplayer mode for up to five players. Players take on the role of either attackers or defenders, and must fight against waves of enemies controlled by artificial intelligence.[23][24]
Situations: the game's most significant single-player component, with 11 scenarios that serve as introductions and tutorials to the game's mechanics.[25]
Tactical Realism: a variation of the standard competitive multiplayer modes, added with the release of the Operation Skull Rain DLC. The game mode features a heavier emphasis on realism and teamwork, removing most of the heads-up display (HUD) elements, the ability to mark opponents, and the ability to see teammates' contours through walls, while also featuring the addition of a realistic ammo management system.[26] This mode is not featured any more but some aspects are in the other multiplayer modes.

text: Setting

text: Three years after Rainbow Program's deactivation, there is a resurgence of terrorist activities, with the White Mask being the most prominent. The terrorists' goals are unknown, yet they are causing chaos across the world.[27] To counter this rising threat, the program is reactivated by a new leader who is simply known as Six (voiced by Angela Bassett).[28] Six assembles a group of special forces operatives from different countries to face and combat the White Masks. Recruits go through multiple exercises to prepare them for future encounters with the White Masks, training to perform hostage rescue and bomb disposal. Eventually, the White Masks launch a chemical attack on a university (called Bartlett University), and the recruits are sent to disarm the bombs and eliminate the enemy presence. The operation is a massive success, though there are casualties. The story ends with Six affirming that the reactivation of Team Rainbow is the best and only choice in a time filled with risks and uncertainties. Team Rainbow is ready for their next mission – to hunt down the leader of their enemy – and they stand prepared to protect and defend their nation from terrorists.

text: Development

text: Origin

text: This entire project was born and has grown out of an in-depth study that looked to distill what the Rainbow series is at its core in terms of both fantasy and gameplay. At the end of the day, the Rainbow Six fantasy about being part of the greatest counter-terrorist organization and impersonating the best of the best operators, working as a team, [and] carrying out dangerous operations (hostage rescue) anywhere on the globe

text: The game's predecessor was Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Patriots, a tactical shooter announced in 2011. It had a focus on narrative, and the story campaign features many cut-scenes and scripted events. However, the game fell into a development hell shortly after its announcement. The game's outdated engine and frequent change of leadership hindered development progress, and game quality was not up to par.[30] In addition, it was planned to be released on seventh-generation video-game consoles which were not capable of processing certain game mechanics. Seeing the arrival of a new generation of consoles, the team wanted to make use of this opportunity to create a more technologically advanced game.[31] As a result, Ubisoft decided to cancel Patriots, and assembled a new team of 25 people to come up with ideas to reboot the series.[32]

text: To make the new game feel refreshing, only certain multiplayer elements were retained as the small team took the game in a different direction. They evaluated the core of the Rainbow Six series, which they thought was about being a member of a counter-terrorist team traveling around the globe to deal with dangerous terrorist attacks – operations which are usually intense confrontations between attackers and defenders.[29] However, the team wanted to fit these ideas into a multiplayer format which would increase the game's sustainability.[33][34] These became the basic concept ideas for the game. As the development team hoped that the game can be replayed frequently, the team decided to devote all the resources into developing the game's multiplayer and abandoned the single-player campaign.[35]

text: Development of the game officially began in January 2013. Ubisoft Montreal, the developer of Patriots, handled the game's development, with Ubisoft's offices in Barcelona, Toronto, Kiev, Shanghai and Chengdu providing assistance.[36][37] The game was originally called Rainbow Six Unbreakable, a title that reflected not only the game's destruction mechanic but also the mindset of the development team, who had to deliver a game that was once stuck in development hell.[33] According to Alexandre Remy, the brand director, the team was confident in their new vision for the game but very nervous when they revealed it, realizing the change of direction would likely disappoint some fans.[32]

text: Gameplay design

text: The 150-person team consisted mainly of first-person shooter veterans or longtime Rainbow Six players.[33] Despite having prior knowledge on how these types of games work, the team decided to study historic examples of counter-terrorist operations, including 1980's London Iranian Embassy siege, 1977's Lufthansa Flight 181 hijacking, and 2002's Moscow theater hostage crisis to ensure that the portrayal of these operations was accurate and appropriate. The team also consulted counter-terrorism units, such as the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group (GIGN), for their opinions on how they would react during a hostage rescue situation.[38] According to Xavier Marquis, the game's creative director, having a hostage rescue mission in the game helped create an immersive story. By allowing players to assume control of an operator tasked with saving innocents, it gives them an objective and a priority. They must be careful in dealing with the situation and try their best not to hurt the hostage. This further promotes teamwork between players and prompts them to plan before attacking, and further makes the game more realistic, tense and immersive.[39] To make the game feel more realistic, the team introduced a mechanic called "living hostage" to govern the hostage character's behavior – e.g., coughing if there is dust in the air or shielding him or herself if there is nearby gunfire.[40]

text: The environmental destruction mechanic was one of the game's most important elements. When the game's development was begun, The developer's in-house team completed their work on RealBlast Destruction, an engine that "procedurally breaks everything down" and remodels the environment.[41] The development team thought that this technology fitted the game's style and gameplay, and decided to use it.[42] This aspect of the game became increasingly important during development, and the team spent an extended period of time making sure that these destructions were authentic. As a result, the team implemented a materials-based tearing system, in which environmental objects of different materials show different reactions to players' attacks.[13] To render the game's texture, the team used physically based rendering, even though it was ineffective during the game's early stage of production due to issues with the game's engine. A material bank and substance painter were utilized to create textures for environmental objects when they were damaged or destroyed. The team also implemented subtle visual cues to help players identify whether a structure was destructible or not, as opposed to "distracting" players with more-obvious hints.[43] The destruction mechanic prompted Ubisoft to change their level-design approach, as they had to ensure that the level was still logical and realistic when parts of the environment were destroyed.[44]

text: According to Ubisoft, "teamwork, tactics, and tension" were the game's three most important pillars. The team initially worked on a respawn feature, allowing players to rejoin after they are killed in the game. However, following several internal tournaments, the team realized that some of their employees would always win a match. They concluded that the respawn system worked to the benefit of strong players and placed individual skill above teamwork,[45] which did not fit the developer's focus on game tactics. Removing the respawn feature meant greater consequences for taking risks, and players had to rely on their teammates in order to survive and achieve objectives. According to Chris Lee, the game's designer, the team initially worried that the system would only appeal to hardcore players. However, after several testings, they found that the removal of the respawn system provided new challenges to strong players and forced them to cooperate with their teammates – while it rewarded weaker players who were willing to take their time, plan their actions, and be strategic.[46][47][48]

text: The gameplay system was designed to allow players to have a lot of freedom. As a result, the team implemented the "Golden 3C Rules", which represents Character, Control, and Camera.[49] Players are always controlling their own actions and movements, and the team intentionally avoided any animation that would disrupt the players. As a result, actions such as setting explosives, or placing a breach charge, can be cancelled immediately so that players can react and shoot. The game's camera only moves when the player moves, as the team feared that the changes of camera angle may lead to players' in-game deaths. A free-lean system was introduced to the game so that players can have more control on their line of sight.[29] According to Ubisoft, this input-driven control mechanism makes the game feel more "natural" and "fluid". This is because it allows players to concentrate on planning and coordinating, rather than thinking if the camera or environment will interfere their actions.[50]

text: Several gameplay elements were scrapped or removed from the final game. One of the features of its predecessors, artificial intelligence-controlled squadmates, were removed from single-player missions. This decision was made because the team wanted players to play with a squad controlled by actual players rather than computers. The team once considered adding a map editor so that players could design their own maps, but this plan never came to fruition. Hit markers, which would indicate an injury inflicted on an opponent, were removed because the team feared that players would abuse the system by "peppering the walls with gunfire" and use hit markers to locate enemies. Players cannot jump in the game, as real-life counter-terrorist unit operators do not jump while carrying out their missions.[47]

text: Sound design

text: According to Louis Philippe, the game's audio director, the team originally used intense music and sounds to create tension. However, the team decided to scrap this idea, realizing that the best way to create a tense atmosphere is to create the sounds of other players, which are often unexpected. The team created Navigation Sounds, in which the sound a player made is determined by their operators' weight, armor, and speed. Gadget deployment such as fortifying and breach-charging create louder sounds that may reveal the player's presence. The team thought that this would be enjoyable for players and influence their gameplay experience.[51] The game's music was composed by Paul Haslinger, who had worked on the score of the previous Rainbow Six games and the Far Cry series. His co-composer was Ben Frost, who debuted his first video game soundtrack with Siege. Leon Purviance assisted Frost and Haslinger in composing the music.[52]

text: Release

text: Ubisoft announced the game at their press conference during Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014.[53] In August 2015, Ubisoft announced that they had delayed the game's release from October 10 to December 1, 2015, in order to give additional time for the team to balance the game for cooperative multiplayer play.[54] A closed alpha-testing was held by Ubisoft on April 7–13, 2015, in which players could play an early version of the game in order to help the development team test their servers and core gameplay loops, and to provide feedback.[55] Ubisoft held a closed beta, starting on September 24, 2015, for further testing. The company originally wanted to hold another round of testing with the release of the game's open beta on November 25, 2015, but they delayed its release to November 26 due to matchmaking issues.[56] Players who purchased Siege for the Xbox One could download Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas and its sequel, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 for free.[57]

text: The game had multiple versions for players to purchase. A season pass was announced on November 12, 2015. Players who bought this version of the game could gain early access to operators offered in the DLCs and receive several weapon skins.[58] The game was also released alongside its Collector's Edition, which included the game's season pass, a hat, a compass and bottle opener, a backpack, and a 120-page guide.[59] A Starter Edition was released on PC in June 2016, featuring all the maps, modes and weapons of the standard edition, and included two operators plus enough Rainbow 6 Credits to purchase two more of the player's choice (players could purchase the rest of the operators with Renown or Rainbow 6 Credits). The Starter Edition was cheaper than the main game, and was initially available for a limited time.[60] In February 2017, the Starter Edition became permanently available via Uplay.[61]

text: According to Ubisoft, the game adopted a "game as a service" approach, as they would provide long-term support for the game and offer post-release content to keep players engaged. The management team initially doubted the idea, but eventually decided to approve it.[32] The title was supported with many updates upon launch, with the company introducing fixes to bugs, and improvements on both matchmaking and general gameplay mechanics.[62][63] They also introduced an auto-kick system, which automatically removes players from a match when they kill a friendly player,[64] and launched the BattleEye system in August 2016 to punish cheaters.[65] All downloadable content maps was released to all players for free.[66] The team avoided adding more modes to the game because most would not fit well with the game's close-quarter combat.[67] Downloadable content for the game were divided into several seasons, with a Mid-Season Reinforcement patch which added new weapons and modified some of the operators' core abilities.[32] This post-release content was developed by the Montreal studio in conjunction with Blue Byte in Germany.[68]

text:
Downloadable content and expansion packs

Year
Name
Release date
Notes

Year 1
Operation Black Ice
February 2, 2016
The DLC introduces a new map, a frozen yacht in Canada. It also introduces two Canadian operators, Frost and Buck. Frost can use a trap to incapacitate enemies, while Buck has an under-barrel shotgun.[69]

Operation Dust Line
May 11, 2016
The DLC introduces a new map set in the Middle East, which was described as "a mix of old and new construction with open air pathways".[70] It also introduces two new operators, Blackbeard and Valkyrie. Blackbeard has face shields that can be mounted onto his rifle, while Valkyrie has three Black Eye Cameras.[71]

Operation Skull Rain
August 2, 2016
The DLC introduces a new map set in Brazil, and two Brazilian operators called Capitão and Caveira.[72] Capitão has a tactical crossbow which can be loaded with asphyxiating bolts, that will burn oxygen within a certain radius, or smoke grenade bolts that create a thick cloud of smoke. Caveira has an ability called Silent Step, which allows her to interrogate an immobilized enemy for the location of other enemies.[73]

Operation Red Crow
November 17, 2016
The DLC introduces a new map set in a skyscraper in Japan, and two Japanese operators called Hibana and Echo. Hibana possesses a weapon that launches up to three sets of six explosives that can break reinforced walls, while Echo uses a drone capable of releasing sonic blasts to disorient enemies.[74]

Year 2
Operation Velvet Shell
February 8, 2017
The DLC introduces a new map set in Spain, and two Spanish operators called Mira and Jackal.[75] Jackal is a tracker who can reveal the location of enemies by tracking their footprints, while Mira can create one-way windows on walls which can be ejected, leaving a space for operators to fire through.[76][77]

Operation Health
June 6, 2017[78]
Operation Health is an update that fine-tuned many of the game's aspects, including fixes to hit boxes, spawn killing and audio issues.[79] This resulted in the delay of season 2's content and the cancellation of a map.[80]

Operation Blood Orchid
September 5, 2017[81]
The DLC introduces a new map set in Hong Kong, two Hong Kong operators named Ying and Lesion, and one Polish operator named Ela.[82] Ying utilizes candela cluster charges that can be thrown or attached to a surface to stun enemies. Lesion uses poison mines that slow and cause damage to an enemy over time when triggered. Ela possesses proximity concussion mines that can be attached to multiple surfaces to disorient enemies.[83][84]

Operation White Noise
December 5, 2017[85]
The DLC introduces a new map set in South Korea, two South Korean operators named Dokkaebi and Vigil, and one Polish operator named Zofia. Dokkaebi is able to hack cameras and enemy phones to make them ring, giving away their positions through sound. Vigil is invisible to enemy drones and cameras. Zofia carries a double barreled grenade launcher capable of launching explosive or concussion grenades.[86]

Year 3
Operation Chimera
March 6, 2018[87]
This DLC introduces one GIGN operator named Lion, and one Spetsnaz operator named Finka. Both are part of a CBRN specialist detachment of Team Rainbow. Lion uses a UAV to temporarily expose moving enemies via sonar; Finka uses nanomachines to temporarily increase the health and accuracy of herself and her teammates. This DLC also introduces "Outbreak", a PvE gamemode where some operators are tasked with containing a biohazard that has turned the citizens of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico into zombie-like monsters.[88]

text: Ubisoft also envisioned the game as an eSports game. The company had their first meeting with David Hiltscher, vice president of ESL, in late 2013. ESL offered feedback on the game's balancing and helped the developer to ensure that the game was suitable for competitive play.[89] The team focused on introducing new operators to provide variety for eSports viewers after the game's release, a decision inspired by modern multiplayer online battle arena games such as Dota 2, as this type of game often has 80–100 playable characters.[90] ESL and Ubisoft officially announced Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Pro League, a global tournament for Windows and Xbox One players. The competition was held at Intel Extreme Masters eSports tournament on March 4, 2016.[91] A European team, PENTA Sports, became the champion of the first season of Rainbow Six Pro League after defeating another team, GiFu, at the final of the tournament held in May 2016.[92] In 2017, It was revealed that Pro League Year Two would return, but Xbox One tournaments would not be featured.[93]

text: Reception

text:
Reception

Aggregate score

Aggregator
Score

Metacritic
(PC) 79/100[94]
(XONE) 74/100[95]
(PS4) 73/100[96]

Review scores

Publication
Score

Destructoid
8/10[97]

Game Informer
7/10[98]

Game Revolution
[99]

GameSpot
8/10[100]

GamesRadar+
[101]

IGN
8.5/10[102]
7.9/10[103]

PC Gamer (US)
90/100[104]

Polygon
6/10[105]

VideoGamer.com
8/10[106]

text: The pre-release reception of the game was positive, with critics praising the game's design and tensions created during matches.[24] In 2014, the game received four nominations from Game Critics Awards: Best of Show, Best PC Game, Best Action Game and Best Online Multiplayer Game.[107] The game eventually became the winner of the Best PC Game category.[108]

text: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege received "generally favorable" reviews from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic. Critics generally praised the game's destructive environment, tactical nature, map design, and its focus on teamwork. However, the lack of content and the game's microtransactions were subjected to criticism.

text: The game's multiplayer was widely praised by critics. Chris Carter from Destructoid praised the game's open-ended nature, which made each match unpredictable and helped the experience to stay fresh even after an extended period of playing.[97] GameSpot's Scott Butterworth appreciated the title for allowing players to make use of their creativity in approaching a mission.[100] James Davenport from PC Gamer echoed this thought, and he described Siege as a "psychological race" in which players are constantly trying to outwit their opponents.[104] Ryan McCaffery from IGN also praised the tactical possibilities, which make the game "tense and riveting".[103] The large number of operators available for players to choose were praised by both Carter and Matt Bertz from Game Informer, who commented that they added depths and variety to the game and that players could experiment to see which pairs of operators can complement each other.[98] However, McCaffery was disappointed by the lack of variety of game modes, and commented that most players usually neglect the mode's objectives and opted to simply eliminate their opponents.[103] Terrorist Hunt received divisive opinions from critics. Carter thought that it was more relaxing,[97] and Butterworth thought it was exhilarating. However, Bertz criticized its lack of variety, weak artificial intelligence, and its less-intense nature when compared with the player-versus-player modes.[98] Martin Robinson from Eurogamer also noted that the mode only ran at 30 frames per second, which limited its appeal.[109]

text: The game's focus on tactics was praised. Bertz applauded the tactical nature of the game, as it fostered communications between players. However, he noted that teamwork may not be possible if players did not have a headphone and microphone.[98] Arthur Gies from Polygon echoed these comments, stating that the game's over-reliance on teamwork meant that when teammates were not communicating, the game would not be fun to play.[105] The "No Respawn" system was praised by Butterworth for making each match feel intense, as even the best player needs to think tactically in order to win.[100] Jonathon Leack from Game Revolution enjoyed the scouting phase of a multiplayer match, which encouraged players to communicate with each other and coordinate their attacks.[99] However, Gies noted that the placement of game objectives does not vary much, thus making the scouting phase meaningless. Both Bertz and Butterworth agreed that the game's competitive nature increases the game's replay value.[98][100] Ben Griffin from GamesRadar praised the destruction mechanic for bringing tactical depth to the game.[101]

text: The gameplay received mixed reviews. Both Bertz and Griffin criticized the game's incompetent hit detection system, which made the experience unfair.[101] Bertz described the game's gunplay as "servicable",[98] while Leack noticed a delay in shooting, which drags the game's pace and leads to a steep learning curve. However, Leack appreciated the game's map design, which opened many possibilities. He also praised its attention to detail and sound design, which can often make a multiplayer match feel like a "great action film".[99] Bertz was disappointed by the lack of customization options, which did not offer long-term progression for the players.[98] Butterworth similarly criticized the progression system for being slow. As players cannot play as the same operator in the same match, he was often forced to play as the generic "recruit" character when he was only at the beginning stage of the game. He also criticized the limited weapon customization options, which barely affect gameplay.[100] McCaffery described customization as the "least interesting" aspect of the game, and claimed that most gameplay features were locked when players started playing.[103] Griffin, Gies, and Steven Burns from VideoGamer.com were annoyed by the microtransactions featured in the game,[106][105] with Griffin describing it as a greedy attempt by Ubisoft to make more money,[101] though Davenport did not mind these features as they were limited to cosmetic items and could be unlocked through earning Renown.[104] Bertz was annoyed the lack of clan infrastructure, which may cause players troubles when they were finding matches,[98] while Griffin thought that map rotation often felt random and was disappointed that players cannot vote to decide which map they are going to play next.[101]

text: Single-player was generally considered a disappointment by critics, with Situations receiving mixed reviews. Carter described it as one of his "favorite non-campaign additions" as the mode gave players incentive to return due to its rating system. Butterworth described it as a "surprisingly robust" mode, and thought that there were great tutorial missions that help players to understand gameplay before trying multiplayer.[100] However, Bertz criticized it for its lack of replay value,[98] and Griffin noted their short length.[101] McCaffery thought that it served as a competent tutorial, but its solo play nature meant that players could not practice teamplay and tactics.[103] Davenport criticized the narrative in Situations, which he thought was not meaningful.[104] Many critics were disappointed with the lack of a single-player campaign or a cooperative campaign,[98][99] but Butterworth believed that the strong multiplayer components can compensate for this absence.[100] Gies noticed certain network issues would affect the single-player.[105]

text: Many critics generally had a positive opinion on the package. Bertz thought that the game's multiplayer design had laid a great foundation for the game, but it was not taken advantage of due to the small number of game modes.[98] Leack felt that Siege's tight focus on tactical gameplay had "provided something unlike any other game on the market".[99] Butterworth found the game very unique and that there was "nothing else like it" when he put aside the game's minor annoyances.[100] Griffin wrote that the title felt very fresh, as most games in the market did not value tactics.[101] Davenport similarly praised the game for being very concentrated and making no compromises on gameplay design, which in turn make the title one of the best tactical multiplayer shooters on the market.[104] Gies recognized the game's potential but thought that they were overshadowed by the game's numerous technical annoyances, frustrating progression system and its lack of content.[105] Robinson was impressed by the game's multiplayer mode, and that the overall package could be considered as the year's best multiplayer game. However, he questioned Ubisoft for releasing the game with so little content while still selling it at full-price.[109]

text: Sales

text: In May 2015, CEO of Ubisoft Yves Guillemot announced that the company expected the game to outsell Far Cry 4's seven million sales over the course of its lifetime because of post-launch support.[110]

text: At the game's launch, it debuted at number six in UK Software Charts, selling 76,000 retail copies across all three platforms.[111] Critics thought that the launch performance was underwhelming and lackluster.[112] However, through continued post-release support and updates, the player base had doubled since the game's launch.[113] Following the summer 2016 launch of the third DLC, Skull Rain, the size of the player base had a 40% increase, and the title had more than 10 million registered players.[114] Two years after launch, the game remained as one of the top 40 best-selling retail games in the UK.[44] The strong performance of Siege, alongside with Tom Clancy's The Division (2016) and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands (2017) boosted the total number of players of the Tom Clancy's franchise to 44 million in 2017.[115] The post-launch success for Siege further solidified Ubisoft's belief in the model of "game as a service". Future Ubisoft multiplayer-focused titles – such as For Honor – adopted this structure, in which the company would provide free DLC and updates several years after the game's official release.[116] In August 2017, Ubisoft announced that the game had passed 20 million players and that the game was played by 2.3 million players every day.[117] Two years after the game's launch, Ubisoft announced that the game has passed 25 million registered players.[118]

text: Accolades

text:
Year
Award
Category
Result
Ref

2014
Game Critics Awards
Best of Show
Nominated
[107][108]

Best PC Game
Won

Best Action Game
Nominated

Best Online Multiplayer Game
Nominated

2015
Game Critics Awards
Best PC Game
Nominated
[119]

Best Action Game
Nominated

Best Online Multiplayer Game
Nominated

Gamescom 2015
Best Online Multiplayer Game
Nominated
[120]

2016
Golden Joystick Awards 2016
Best Multiplayer Game
Nominated
[121]

The Game Awards 2016
Best Multiplayer Game
Nominated
[122]

2017
Golden Joystick Awards 2017
eSports Game of the Year
Nominated
[123]

The Game Awards 2017
Best Ongoing Game
Nominated
[124]

2018
14th British Academy Games Awards
Evolving Game
Pending
[125]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ Additional work by Ubisoft Kiev, Ubisoft Toronto, Ubisoft Barcelona.


document_title: Seat belt legislation

question_text: when was the seat belt law introduced uk

root

text: Seat belt legislation

text: National comparisons[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: In Australia, after the introduction of mandatory front outboard mounting points in 1964, the use of seat belts by all vehicle passengers was made compulsory in the states of Victoria and South Australia in 1970 and 1971, respectively.[1] By 1973, the use of fitted seat belts by vehicle occupants was made compulsory for the rest of Australia and some other countries during the 1970s and 1980s. The subsequent dramatic decline in road deaths is generally because of seat belt laws and subsequent road safety campaigns.[2][3][4] Seat belts are not required for bus occupants, reversing drivers, and those driving some slow moving vehicles. The laws for these differ depending on the state or territory with jurisdiction.

tag: p

text: Canada[edit]

text: All provinces in Canada have primary enforcement seat belt laws. In 1976, Ontario was the first province to pass a law which required vehicle occupants to wear seat belts.[5]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: In the United Kingdom, seat belts must be worn at all times if they are fitted to a vehicle unless reversing. Passengers may be exempt from wearing a seat belt for different reasons. Since September 18, 2006, children travelling in the UK must also use an appropriate child seat in addition to the standard seat belt, unless they are 12 years old and/or have reached at least 135 centimetres (53 in) in height.[6]

text: In the UK, a requirement for anchorage points was introduced in 1965, followed by the requirement in 1968 to fit three-point belts in the front outboard positions on all new cars and all existing cars back to 1965.[citation needed] Successive UK Governments proposed, but failed to deliver, seat belt legislation throughout the 1970s. Front seat belts were compulsory equipment on all new cars registered in the UK from 1972, although it did not become compulsory for them to be worn until 1983. Rear seat belts were compulsory equipment from 1986 and became compulsory for them to be worn in 1991. However, it has never been a legal requirement for cars registered before those dates to be fitted with seat belts.[7]  In one such attempt in 1979 similar claims for potential lives and injuries saved were advanced.  William Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport in the Callaghan Labour Government (1976–1979), stated: "On the best available evidence of accidents in this country - evidence which has not been seriously contested - compulsion could save up to 1000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year."[8]

text: United States[edit]

text: In the United States, seat belt legislation varies by state. The state of Wisconsin introduced legislation in 1961 requiring seat belts to be fitted to the front outboard seat positions of cars.[9]  Seat belts have been mandatory equipment since the 1968 model year per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.

text: New York State passed the first law in the US mandating the use of seat belts in 1984 under the leadership of John D. States, an orthopedic surgeon who dedicated his career to improving automotive safety.[10]  Depending on which state a driver is in, not wearing a seat belt in the front seat is either a primary offense or a secondary offense, with the exception of New Hampshire, which does not have a law requiring people over age 18 to wear a seat belt. In the front seat, the driver and each passenger must wear a seat belt, one person per belt. In some states, such as New York, New Hampshire, and Michigan, belts in the rear seats are not mandatory for people over the age of 16, though it is extremely advised. The driver and front-seat passengers aged 16 or older can be fined up to $50 each for failure to buckle up. In California, you must be 15 years or older to accompany the driver in the front seat. Children 14 and younger must sit in the rear seat until they reach the age of 15.Template:DMV.org

text:
A primary offense means that a police officer can pull a driver over for the seat belt law violation alone, and secondary offense indicates that one can be punished for a seat belt law violation only if they are already pulled over for another reason. By January 2007 25 states and the District of Columbia had primary seat belt laws, 24 had secondary seat belt laws, and New Hampshire had no laws.[11]
In 2009, Public Health Law Research published several evidence briefs summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. One stated, "Safety belt laws work, but there is strong evidence to support that primary enforcement safety belt laws are more effective than secondary enforcement laws in increasing seat belt use and reducing crash injuries."[12]

text: Another found that "there is strong evidence that enhanced seat belt enforcement interventions can substantially increase seat belt use and its associated benefits."[13]

text: Developing countries[edit]

text: In many developing countries, pedestrians, cyclists, rickshaw operators and moped users represent the majority of road users.

text: In India, all cars manufactured after March 25, 1994 are equipped with front seat belts. The rule was extended for rear seats in 2002. The usage of seat belts is to be implemented by the respective states, with most states making seat belt usage for front seat passengers mandatory in 2002. Older vehicles that did not originally have seat belts were exempted. However, enforcement is weak in most parts of the country.

text: In Indonesia, belts are only mandatory for front seats. Many low entry car models are not equipped with rear seat belts.[14]

text: In Malaysia, the first stage of safety belt laws was implemented in 1979. This was expanded in January 2009 to include rear passengers. Passenger vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1995, and those weighing more than 3.5 tons are exempted from this rule. The third and fourth stages, which will deal with baby and child seats and the number of passengers in a vehicle, have not taken effect.[15]

text: In the Philippines, a seat belt law, Republic Act No. 8750, was approved in August 5, 1999. The law took effect in 2000 and requires all public and private vehicles, except motorcycles and tricycles, to have their front seats equipped with seat belts. Front seats as defined by the law includes the first row of seats behind the driver for public utility buses. Those below the age of six are prohibited to occupy the front seats of motor vehicles even if wearing a seat belt. Jeepneys are only required to have lap belts for the front seat passengers and the driver.[16][17]

text: The table below gives an overview of when seat belt legislation was first introduced in different countries. It includes both regional and national legislation.

text:
Country
Compulsory wearing
Compulsory fitting
Source

Cars
Bus passengers
Cars
Buses

Driver
Front passengers
Rear passengers

 Argentina
1994

1994
1994 (First row only, all in school buses)
[18]

 Australia
1970 (Victoria), 1971 (SA, NSW), 1972 (national), 1986 (child restraints)

1969, 1970 (back seat, Victoria) 1971 (back seat)
1983 (≤3.5 tonnes)
[19][20]

 Canada
1976

 Czech Republic
1966 (outside cities)1990 (all)
19761990
2004
1968

[21]

 European Union
1993

[22]

 Finland
1975
1982
1987
2006

 France
1973 (outside cities), 1975 (cities at night), 1979 (all)
1990
2003
1967, 1978 (back seat)
2003
[22]
[23]

 Germany
1976
1984
1999
1970, 1979 (back seat)
1999
Angurtpflicht

 Hungary
1976

1993

[19]

 Hong Kong
1983
1983
1996
2004 (minibuses)
1996 (back seat)
2004 (minibuses)

[24]

 India

1994 (front seats), 2002 (rear seats)

 Ireland
1979

1992

1971 (front seats), 1992 (rear seats)

[25]

 Italy
1989
1990 (where available)‡
2006‡
1988 (new vehicles); 1989 (all*, front seats); 1990 (new vehicles, back seats); 2000 (all*, back seats)
2006
[26]

 Japan
1971† (1985)
1971 (no fines), 1985 (fines on freeway), 1993 (all)
2008
2008
1969

[22]

 Myanmar
2017
2017
2017
2016 (motorway buses enforced)

 Netherlands
1976
1992

1975 (front) 1990 (rear)

 New Zealand
1972
1972 (15 years and over), 1979 (8 years and over)
1989♣

1972 (vehicles registered after 1965), 1975 (after 1955)

[27]

 Philippines
2000 (those below 6 years prohibited to occupy front seats)

2000 (first row beside the driver's seat only)
2000
[28]

 Singapore
1973
1973
1993
2008 (small buses)
1973

 Spain
1975

 Sri Lanka
2011
2011

 Sweden
1975
1986
1969 (front) 1970 (rear)
2004
[22][29]

 Thailand
1996
2009

 United Kingdom
1983
1991
2006
1967 (front) 1987 (rear)

[30]

 United States
1984 (New York; seat belt use law is jurisdiction of individual states)

Wisconsin, 1961. Federally, front lap 1965 model year; front shoulder & rear lap 1968; 3-point front 1974

[22]

tag: table

text:
* - actually only vehicles registered after 15 June 1976; in previous registered vehicles fitting is optional
† - required by the law, but no penalty for violation at the time
‡ - required by the law, but low enforcement
♣ - definitely introduced by this date, possibly earlier

text: Effects[edit]

text: Studies by road safety authorities conclude that seat belt legislation has reduced the number of casualties in road accidents.

text: Experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers also indicated that wearing seat belts should lead to reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.

text: Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 percent if seat belts are worn.  The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reduced by 48 percent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15,147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that if seat belt use were increased to 100 percent, an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.[31]

text: An earlier statistical analysis by the NHTSA claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US.[32]

text: According to a more recent fact sheet produced by the NHTSA:

text: By 2009, despite large increases in population and the number of vehicles, road deaths in Victoria had fallen below 300, less than a third of the 1970 level, the lowest since records were kept, and far below the per capita rate in jurisdictions such as the United States. This reduction was generally attributed to aggressive road safety campaigns beginning with the seat belt laws.[34][35]

text: A 2008 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that mandatory seat belt laws in the U.S. "significantly increased seatbelt use among high school age youths by 45-80%" and "significantly reduced traffic fatalities and serious injuries resulting from fatal crashes by 8 and 9%, respectively."[36] The authors note that these "results suggest that if all states had primary enforcement seatbelt laws then regular youth seatbelt use would be nearly universal and youth fatalities would fall by about 120 per year."[36]

text: Opposition[edit]

text: A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common grounds for opposition are:

text:
The view that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement of individual liberty.
Claims that official estimates of the number of lives saved by seat belts are overstated or fail to take into account additional risks for other road users.

tag: ul

text: Risk compensation and other theories[edit]

text: The most common basis for disputing estimates of the benefits of seat belts is risk compensation  and risk homeostasis, advanced by researchers John Adams and Gerald Wilde. The idea of this theory is that, if the risk of death or injury from a car crash is reduced by the wearing of seat belts, drivers will respond by reducing the precautions they take against crashes. Adams accepts the hypothesis that wearing seat belts improves a vehicle occupant’s chances of surviving a crash.[37] In order to explain the disparity between the agreed improvement in crash survival and the observed results, Adams and Wilde argue that protecting someone from the consequences of risky behaviour may tend to encourage greater risk taking. Wilde states, "to compel a person to use protection from the consequences of hazardous driving, as seat belt laws do, is to encourage hazardous driving. A fine for non-compliance will encourage seat belt use, but the fact that the law fails to increase people's desire to be safe encourages compensatory behaviour." [38]

text: Studies and experiments have been carried out to examine the risk compensation theory. In one experiment subjects were asked to drive go-karts around a track under various conditions. It was found that subjects who started driving belted did not drive any slower when subsequently unbelted, but those who started driving unbelted did drive consistently faster when subsequently belted.[39] A study of habitual non-seat belt wearers driving in freeway conditions found evidence that they had adapted to seat belt use by adopting higher driving speeds and closer following distances.[40] In another study, taxi drivers who were habitual non-wearers were timed over a route with passengers who did, and others who did not, insist on the driver wearing a belt. They completed the route faster when belted.[41]

text: In addition to risk compensation, Adams has suggested other mechanisms that may lead to inaccurate or unsupportable predictions of positive benefits from seat belt legislation.

text:
Case-control studies based on voluntary use of safety aids can attribute to the aid benefits that actually come from the risk-averse nature of those likely to use them voluntarily (confounding), particularly early adopters.
Fatality rates are subject to considerable stochastic noise, and comparison of single years or short periods can be misleading.

text: Individual liberty[edit]

text: Opponents have objected to the laws on libertarian principles.[42] Some do so on the grounds that seat belt laws infringe on their civil liberties.  For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation was "coercive" and that "a mandatory-seat-belt law violates the right to bodily privacy and self-control".[43]

text: A counterpoint to the libertarian view is that by reducing death and serious injury, mandatory seat belt use and enforcement of seat belt laws results in substantial social benefits. For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $48 billion in medical expenses and lost work.[44] An example is an unbelted driver who kills or injures another road user because he/she slides out of proper seating position and cannot regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions. Another notable scenario is of rear-seated passengers being forced forward in a crash and thus inadvertently harming the driver or front passenger. A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seat belts cost the hospital (and the state, in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.[45]

text: Side-effects of seat belts[edit]

text: Neck injuries can be caused by the deceleration from a high speed. The passengers head continues to move forward while the body is restrained, potentially causing paralyzing injuries. A study of such injuries notes, "Seatbelts save lives. However, they may cause injury to adjacent structures and when they malfunction can cause injury to the abdominal viscera, bony skeleton and vascular structures. The motor industry has attempted to reduce these injuries by modification of vehicle design and safety equipment."[46]


document_title: 2018 Commonwealth Games medal table

question_text: who has the most medals in the commonwealth games 2018

text: 2018 Commonwealth Games medal table

text: Firsts[edit]

text: The Solomon Islands won its first ever Commonwealth Games medal, a bronze won by Jenly Tegu Wini in the women's 58 kg weightlifting event.[1]

text: The Cook Islands won its first ever Commonwealth Games medal, a bronze won by Taiki Paniani and Aidan Zittersteijn in the men's pairs lawn bowls event.[2]

text: Vanuatu won its first ever Commonwealth Games medal, a bronze won by para athlete Friana Kwevira in the women's javelin throw (F46) event.[3]

text: Dominica won its first ever Commonwealth Games medal when Thea LaFond won a bronze medal in the women's triple jump event.[4][5] A few days later, Dominica won its first ever silver medal when Yordanys Duranona Garcia came second in the men's triple jump event.

text: British Virgin Islands won its first ever Commonwealth Games medal when Kyron McMaster won the men's 400m hurdles.[6][7]

text: Saint Lucia won its first ever Commonwealth Games gold medal when Levern Spencer won the women's high jump event.

text: Medal table[edit]

text: The ranking in this table is consistent with International Olympic Committee convention in its published medal tables. By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation have won (in this context, a "nation" is an entity represented by a Commonwealth Games Association). The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals. If nations are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically by their three-letter country code. Australia tops the medal table rank with 80 gold, second England with 45 gold and third India with 26 gold.

text: *   Host nation (Australia)

text:
2018 Commonwealth Games medal table

Rank
CGA
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total

1
 Australia (AUS)*
80
59
59
198

2
 England (ENG)
45
45
46
136

3
 India (IND)
26
20
20
66

4
 Canada (CAN)
15
40
27
82

5
 New Zealand (NZL)
15
16
15
46

6
 South Africa (RSA)
13
11
13
37

7
 Wales (WAL)
10
12
14
36

8
 Scotland (SCO)
9
13
22
44

9
 Nigeria (NGR)
9
9
6
24

10
 Cyprus (CYP)
8
1
5
14

11
 Jamaica (JAM)
7
9
11
27

12
 Malaysia (MAS)
7
5
12
24

13
 Singapore (SGP)
5
2
2
9

14
 Kenya (KEN)
4
7
6
17

15
 Uganda (UGA)
3
1
2
6

16
 Botswana (BOT)
3
1
1
5

17
 Samoa (SAM)
2
3
0
5

18
 Trinidad and Tobago (TTO)
2
1
0
3

19
 Namibia (NAM)
2
0
0
2

20
 Northern Ireland (NIR)
1
7
4
12

21
 Bahamas (BAH)
1
3
0
4

22
 Papua New Guinea (PNG)
1
2
0
3

23
 Fiji (FIJ)
1
1
2
4

24
 Pakistan (PAK)
1
0
4
5

25
 Grenada (GRN)
1
0
1
2

26
 Bermuda (BER)
1
0
0
1

 Guyana (GUY)
1
0
0
1

 British Virgin Islands (IVB)
1
0
0
1

 Saint Lucia (LCA)
1
0
0
1

30
 Bangladesh (BAN)
0
2
0
2

31
 Sri Lanka (SRI)
0
1
5
6

32
 Cameroon (CMR)
0
1
2
3

33
 Dominica (DMA)
0
1
1
2

34
 Isle of Man (IOM)
0
1
0
1

 Mauritius (MRI)
0
1
0
1

 Nauru (NRU)
0
1
0
1

37
 Malta (MLT)
0
0
2
2

 Vanuatu (VAN)
0
0
2
2

39
 Cook Islands (COK)
0
0
1
1

 Ghana (GHA)
0
0
1
1

 Norfolk Island (NFI)
0
0
1
1

 Seychelles (SEY)
0
0
1
1

 Solomon Islands (SOL)
0
0
1
1

Total (43 CGAs)
275
276
289
840


document_title: How Lily Stole Christmas

question_text: what did ted call lily in the grinch episode

text: How Lily Stole Christmas

text: Plot[edit]

text: This section's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (May 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Ted has decided to spend Christmas in his home this year with "his other family". He doesn't want to spend it with his mom and her new boyfriend, Clint; or his dad and his new 'girlfriend', microbrewing; or his super-religious cousin, Stacy, in Staten Island. While Lily decorates his apartment, Marshall says he must go to the law library to finish one last paper that is due that day. He refuses to look at any of the decorations as he leaves because the "winter wonderland" will be his reward for finishing the paper. After he leaves, Lily finds the old answering machine that was unplugged after Lily and Marshall broke up. Lily plays messages that are still on it, and hears a message from Ted to Marshall telling him to get over Lily. In this message, Ted calls Lily "a bad word...a very, very bad word" (implied to be either "bitch" or "cunt" - based on the fact that Ted usually replaces the word "bitch" with the word "beach," it is more likely the latter)[1] which is substituted in future Ted's re-telling of the story with the word "grinch."

text: Lily asks why Ted would call her that word, and Ted reveals that he was trying to get Marshall to stop idolizing Lily even after they had split during the summer, and told Marshall at the time if he did not stop putting her up on a pedestal, he would never get over her. Ted asks Marshall to tell him one thing wrong with Lily. Finally Marshall gives in and he does and follows with making jokes about Lily along with Ted and Barney at the bar. Ted tells Lily that he was just trying to help Marshall and he refuses to apologize to Lily because she was "kind of a grinch".

text: At the bar, Ted is telling Robin and a progressively ill Barney about what happened, and realizes that he has to apologize to Lily. Ted brings a beer back up to the apartment to offer as an apology. When he opens the door, he finds that Lily has taken all the Christmas decorations away from their apartment. Ted wants to make sure the winter wonderland will be there when Marshall gets back from the library. Ted tries to call Lily but with no result. As Robin and a very sick Barney stack at the apartment Ted decides to go to Lily's apartment to apologize. He tricks her into thinking he's the pizza delivery guy so he's able to get her to open the door to her tiny, crappy, cramped NY apartment. He says he's sorry that he called her "a grinch", but Lily works out that he is faking an apology, and is clearly still angry with her. She asks Ted why he won't forgive her when she has already apologised to Marshall. He replies that she never apologised to him, and that her abrupt departure and lack of contact had hurt him as well. He and Lily get into another argument, when her power suddenly goes off, with Lily saying that Ted pissed off the "big man up stairs," her super, that lives above her. He then tells Lily that she can take the decorations back to his and Marshall's apartment because he's going to visit his cousin's family in Staten Island. Marshall comes back home to the apartment, claiming he blew off his paper, but he had been spending hours tracking down his gift for Lily. He finds the winter wonderland intact and no knowledge of what happened earlier in the day.

text: In the meantime, Robin insists upon taking care of Barney, who has caught a terrible cold. He whines about wearing sweatpants, not getting ice cream for dinner, and everything else he can until Robin spikes his tea with codeine.

text: Marshall has brought a package with him, a present for Lily. He tells the story of how he went to the post office to find out why it hadn't come in when it was supposed to. The lady tells him that the package is already on the truck headed to Poughkeepsie. Marshall runs the truck down and asks if he can have the package back. The driver says yes but that he's running behind on his route so Marshall has to ride along. Marshall gets his package, but when the driver tells him that he won't be able to deliver all of the packages in time for Christmas he decides to help out. Lily opens the package to find an Easy-Bake Oven, something she wanted since childhood, but never got because her feminist mom didn't want her to conform to traditional gender roles, and gave her a Lego set instead. Since she has no idea how Marshall knew about her preferred item, he admits learning about it from Ted, whom Lily told her story to back in college. Marshall asks where Ted is and Lily tells him Staten Island.

text: At Ted's cousin's house, Ted is having a miserable time. Lily, Robin, Marshall and Barney arrive with an apology beer for Ted. Ted tells his cousin that it's carolers to keep her from coming to the door. While the other three sing, Lily says she's sick of apologizing and the two agree to skip straight to the forgiveness. Ted takes off after his cousin's children overhear Lily say she "was kind of a grinch", and they all begin to cheer "grinch!" over and over.

text: Critical response[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2015)

text: Joel Keller of TV Squad said it was a good episode, and an improvement over the previous year's New Year's Eve episode.[1]