Report: Red players win more often

  • By Emma_UK, GameSpot
  • Posted Jun 12, 2008 3:20 pm GMT

According to boffins studying first-person shooter Unreal Tournament 2004, gamers have more of a chance of being on the winning side if they choose to play as a red team member as opposed to blue.The team of scientists, led by Mihai Moldovan from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, studied the...

According to boffins studying first-person shooter Unreal Tournament 2004, gamers have more of a chance of being on the winning side if they choose to play as a red team member as opposed to blue.

The team of scientists, led by Mihai Moldovan from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, studied the outcomes of 1,347 matches between "elite" teams. The characters for the two teams would be shown to be wearing red or blue, depending on their side.

It would seem to be a detail that would be of little consequence to winning, but the scientists have found otherwise. Based on a 50/50 split, the red team won 55 percent of the time, reports AP, citing the Cyberpsychology & Behaviour journal.

Moldovan said that he believed the reason behind this was that the colour red acts as a "psychological distractor" to men.

Scientists have also found that wearing the colour red seems to give players an advantage in real-life sports. A report by Durham University academics studied four combat sports at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games: boxing, tae kwon do, Greco-Roman wrestling, and freestyle wrestling. They found that across all four, those who were donned in red won significantly more fights.

However, Mark Rein, the vice president of Unreal Tournament 2004 creator Epic Games said that the company wouldn't be making any changes to the game in response to the findings. He said, "While this is really an interesting analysis, the notion of red team versus blue team has been ingrained in the Unreal Tournament series for years. We don't anticipate any immediate changes to team colours."

201 Comments

  • Talus057

    Posted Oct 29, 2009 7:00 am GMT

    The fact that these student "scientists" know nothing of probability would likely explain why they have not yet graduated from college.

  • ElMunky

    Posted Jul 11, 2009 9:37 pm GMT

    the red team is just better at the game that is why they win all the time some smart scientist for yah

  • ernelson1976

    Posted Jun 17, 2009 2:22 pm GMT

    There's an easy solution: from *your* perspective, your teammates are always red, and enemies always blue. Same for the other team. That way no one gets the benefit. Just call the teams Alpha and Beta rather than red and blue. Done.

  • Sheniken

    Posted Apr 25, 2009 10:34 pm GMT

    honestly, I think these resluts are flawed. How many actual players played on each team? How skilled were the players? Were bots used? Were the teams even, if they any had bots at all? This test can't be taken for more than a grain of salt. You can't flip a coin and expect even results after 10,100, or eve 100 flips!

  • Ben1220

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 6:29 pm GMT

    Wow that is interesting, but I always play on utcomp servers with forced character models and skins, so no matter what team I am on enemies appear as a bright green gorge.

  • dvros

    Posted Nov 6, 2008 2:41 pm GMT

    Isn't red the default team color for the Unreal Tournament games in the first place?

  • volcomstoner180

    Posted Jun 27, 2008 12:09 pm GMT

    its cause im on red

  • astray36

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 2:10 pm GMT

    Can i have what they r smoking. The only TRUE reason that red team may win more because reds have better people. THAT IS IT!

  • razgriz180

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 1:49 pm GMT

    But Sarge, Grif, Simmons and Donut are on the red team how could they win i mean Sarge is a idiot, Simmons is a kissass, Grif is lazy and Donut is gay!
    Nooooooooo bad red team....

  • fullfatman

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 10:59 am GMT

    Could it possibly be that the people who are on the red team are better? Whenever I play on Blue team i never lose.

  • Dernwine

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 9:55 am GMT

    1347!?! they obviously played 10 to many games.

  • Calebman

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:01 am GMT

    Sarge knew about this all along.
    Suck it, blue!

  • vito_128

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 9:26 pm GMT

    Lies! Lies and slander! Blue always wins against Red...
    Right?

  • fernan17893

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 7:51 pm GMT

    Now all the noobs will go on the red teams and these statics will change.

  • Tribalcheetah

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 3:57 pm GMT

    Back when I played FPS, it was the blue team that always won.

  • Lord__Darkstorn

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 3:52 pm GMT

    Huh. Is this political? Because I'm a trucking Socialist...

  • motionxsickness

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 3:24 pm GMT

    DUH.

  • Silver_Crow

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 4:09 am GMT

    A 10% dicrepency to be exact u.u xD
    55% - 45% = 10%

  • -Shan-

    Posted Jun 16, 2008 12:26 am GMT

    So, red is better than blue.

    So, why are they showing a picture of the red guy getting punched in the chin by the blue guy?

  • dale22x

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 8:12 pm GMT

    a 5% dicrepency is to be expected...........inconclusive?

  • Silver_Crow

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 8:09 pm GMT

    ELIMINATORIAS FIFA WORLD CUP 2010

    CHILE-------> 2 (Red)
    BOLIVIA-----> 0 (White/Green)

    CHILE-------> 55% (Chance to win to Bolivia xD)

  • p00pz

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 7:46 pm GMT

    detroit red wings!!!!

  • littleloyd

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 6:06 pm GMT

    kinda a true faq i win in red more then blue

  • Pete5506

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 4:44 pm GMT

    I never win on red team

  • andru183

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 2:13 pm GMT

    this just seems like another pointless study with no real out come

  • Erebus

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 12:12 pm GMT

    I can add this to the discussion: Being mostly color blind, I find it MUCH more difficult to locate red players than blue ones in Unreal Tournament III.

    To my eyes, red players are NOT bright, but instead blend well into the surroundings. Blue players are much easier for me to spot from a distance.

  • pidow

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 11:30 am GMT

    I'm not sure that I have ever lost being blue......Red is dead, I never play red.

  • PukingPug

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 10:33 am GMT

    GO RED!!!!!!!!!

  • Razzi65

    Posted Jun 15, 2008 1:10 am GMT

    SOME REAL LIFE EXAMPLES OF RED WINS...

    manchester united (love u)
    micheal schumacher
    etc.......

  • Agulf

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 3:02 pm GMT

    55 percent in such a small (1,347 matches) batch is still regarded as 50/50. Anyone who's taken math knows this. If it was 100 000 samples (matches) and like 70 - 80 % red wins, it would have merit. As it is, this test is inconclusive, and I'm quite pleased to see people criticizing this.

  • living_wmd_888

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 1:16 pm GMT

    Heh... even on Wheel of Fortune, it seemed like the red player would win most of the time.

  • Flat_Line_____

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 12:30 pm GMT

    Justmullins WOW, I love how everyone is so critical, the study showed that there was a basic connection to man's aggression and the color red, yet all these moron's want to talk about how this study is a waste of time...would you have rather them do the study on a power rangers game, and see how many times the red ranger was killed? my point is, they picked a POPULAR game so they had more research material, and they made sure that said game was a good mid-range game, meaning it can be run on most computers, while it is still popular enough to be heavily populated. So in stead of criticizing them on their study, why don't you guys actually read the article again, and look beyond the obvious...at the implications implied by the research. This could be a step in the direction of improving something in our daily lives, yet most of you scoff.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although i completely agree, I think you may be preaching to the wrong choir here

  • TryDaBeardON

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 10:25 am GMT

    Yeah, 1347 matches to show that color red is a "psychological distractor" to men and that "proven" by a 55/45 margin. So I guess if you put brown vs white it's going to be exactly 50/50 because no one's distracted, and luck, fatigue, boredom have never factored in games. The marvels of modern science... Oh, wait, 1347 doesn't even split evenly. Hmm.

  • el_hermoso

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 7:59 am GMT

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7040/fig_tab/435293a_F1.html#figure-title

    Just look at the results there.

  • Gamer_152

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 7:40 am GMT

    Interesting stuff and I guess it makes sense. It at least provides a little more explanation to why the Alliance can never win in Battlegrounds.

  • Crzy1

    Posted Jun 14, 2008 5:22 am GMT

    Hmmm... is this the reason the Alliance lose more in BGs in World of Warcraft? =P

  • plm3d_basic

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 7:50 pm GMT

    They can get the same results by flipping a coin.

  • 100000

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 6:04 pm GMT

    Jesus. What happened to chance? I mean god, its just 5% more, there is a huge huge HUGE element of luck in this analysis, pretty stupid if you ask me.

  • POWERFUL-TNT

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 5:50 pm GMT

    I think this is not very true, as usually the team that has better players wins. Especially if they are cheaters. In UT99 most of the cheaters go into the Red team and that's how it wins.

  • ALLoY1717

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 4:33 pm GMT

    I can already hear the new excuses from noobs. but I was on the blue team......

  • Justmullins

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 4:15 pm GMT

    WOW, I love how everyone is so critical, the study showed that there was a basic connection to man's aggression and the color red, yet all these moron's want to talk about how this study is a waste of time...would you have rather them do the study on a power rangers game, and see how many times the red ranger was killed? my point is, they picked a POPULAR game so they had more research material, and they made sure that said game was a good mid-range game, meaning it can be run on most computers, while it is still popular enough to be heavily populated. So in stead of criticizing them on their study, why don't you guys actually read the article again, and look beyond the obvious...at the implications implied by the research. This could be a step in the direction of improving something in our daily lives, yet most of you scoff.

  • MatthewNintendo

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 2:23 pm GMT

    Wow some people just have no life. At the end of the day if a team is more skilled, they will win.

  • akiwak

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 12:34 pm GMT

    Does red underwear count?

  • JPokes

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 12:18 pm GMT

    This study is extremely interesting. This is far from a waste of time, it could have huge implications for sports teams as well as videogames. For all of you who have been saying "what's the point?" a 55/45% split is very significant for something that is supposed to come out to 50/50.

  • kennym229 posted Jun 13, 2008 11:50 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    kennym229

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 11:50 am GMT (hide)

    Is this wat our scientist are studying about!?!? Why dont they try to solve our rising gas prices issue, not whether which color wins the most. Cant beleive i wasted my time reading and posting on this.

  • lil_luz_10 posted Jun 13, 2008 10:01 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    lil_luz_10

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 10:01 am GMT (hide)

    ...wow...who cares...honestly!? I think I just wasted 15 seconds of my life reading and responding to that...

  • AzureWind213

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 9:56 am GMT

    They should have repeated the study with all the players THINKING they were red (shooting blue players), then all the players THINKING they were blue (shooting red players). This study wasn't as blind as it should have been. There isn't enough random testing here, it's just another way to get in the news I guess.

  • edhc44

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 9:50 am GMT

    This guy's next research: "Why earthworms don't use keyboards"

  • Nemephosis

    Posted Jun 13, 2008 9:27 am GMT

    What an incredibly stupid study. Assume there is a 5v5 game going on. An 11th player joining defaults to Red. That's why Red seems to win more, because in lopsided games like that, Red gets the default extra player.

    Christ almighty, how stupid...

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!