Defense Secretary Says No To Medal of Honor

EA’s Medal of Honor has attracted the appropriate media storm for allowing gamers to play as the Taliban in its multiplayer, and now Liam Fox, UK Defense Secretary, has thrown in his two pennies’ worth.

In a comment to The Guardian, Fox expressed his disgust that such a game would encourage and reward players for attacking the allied forces.

I am disgusted and angry. It’s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.

Failing an outright ban on EA’s title, Liam Fox can certainly work the guilt trip angle on UK retailers.

We always like to shine a light on this kind of knee jerk reaction here at TSA. While in this case The Guardian has presented a balanced story, it’s nonetheless embarrassing to see how video games are still regarded among the nation’s decision makers.

Source: The Guardian


  1. Why would Liam Fox argue about pixels??

  2. What about games where you play as a criminal. In GTA you are running amok killing law-abiding innocents and the fine law-upholding police. Sure GTA gets a bit of controversy too but what about the NFSs where you are a street racer. Obviously your character is morally in the wrong AND that’s much more clear cut than the two sides of any war.

    • GTA has courted controversy for years, so it’s not been without politicians speaking out about it over the past decade or so.

      • I already acknowledged that. What about NFS though or any of a number of games where you play a clearly immoral law breaker. My point is that wars have two (or more) sides and very rarely is one as clear cut ‘evil’ as the criminals you play in these other games, yet no one complains about them.

  3. Think the point to reiterate here is that like GTA MoH is just a game whatever the content it still is an allways will be just a game and that is all. Kids playing german soldiers in playgrounds post war to them that was fresh wounds if you like but they still did it just because technology has allowed us to represent that in didgital form makes no difference its all pretend.

  4. Am I the only one who spells defence with a ‘c’ thee days??

    • these*

    • Nope, surprised that you’re the only person to point that out. Riles me more than the idiots views for some reason.

    • Who’d spell defence without the ‘c’?

      • Americans and people who have Word on US spellcheck I guess :)

      • Also tired news writers who write up stories late on Sunday nights.

  5. I can see where he’s coming from but it comes back to a point that i make quite often. You can’t make a game to please everyone. There is allways going to be people who disagree with the content that is in games. Another point is that they are pixels on a screen. The only thing that i have a problem with is a 12 year old killing our allies and laughing while doing it.

    • its 17+ game

      • But kids around 12 will still get through the misguided nminds of their parents.

      • Modern Warfare 2 is an 18 rated game but kids still play that online.

      • That isn’t the game devs’ fault. This is a can of worms that’s been opened plenty of time (especially flowing that Titchmarsh debacle) but the point is that developers of a 17+ or 18 certificate game are not, and SHOULD not, be worrying about the kids that play it. Parents and retailers are the ones responsible for ensuring ‘kids’ never do.

  6. there’s an old argument lurking there somewhere

  7. What im talking about then, you would describe as insurgents then. Problem is that the insurgents fight for the Taliban. Which is why I said you are generalising. Agree to disagree then?

    Anyway this debates gone way off topic of the story, and is getting to long and a bit too serious.

    CC one last thing. Are you availiable for Warhawk tonight? Its been ages since youve been able to join in with us on a Warhawk game! I need someone good to help me against Jas-n!

  8. people should be more worried about the real thing.

  9. What about the Taliban members that British/US forces are protecting. Can’t remember what it was I was watching, but had interviews with British troops that were a bit miffed that they were assigned to areas that where still under Taliban rule. And it was the fact that the places they were defending were major poppy producing areas, so they were basically making sure that production of heroin wasn’t disrupted by opposing Taliban forces.

  10. why is it okay to shoot Taliban forces but not British/American forces they are still people even if they are in the wrong.

    • prehaps its not a good idea to enter here into a discussion about who is right or wrong in war

Comments are now closed for this post.