Madden 12’s Cover Vote Gets A Little Farcical

Madden 12’s Cover Vote Gets A Little Farcical
To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Kotaku Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

When EA Sports drew up 32 options for Madden fans to vote on to determine who would be this year’s cover star, they probably had an absolute worst-case scenario of how the votes would unfold. This is that worst-case scenario.

The two finalists – and this is a decision based on public voting, not EA Sports’ own decisions – have been decided, and they are…Eagles QB Michael Vick and Cleveland Browns RB Peyton Hillis.

Hillis, while not exactly a complete stranger, is not Madden cover material. Especially given the fact he plays for the Cleveland Browns, possibly the least marketable team in the league (don’t email me though, I love the Browns).

And Vick? Let’s put aside the dog-killer argument for a minute, and remember that in spite of that, the guy has already been on the cover of Madden, back in 2003.

No player has ever repeated as a Madden cover star, not even the likes of Brett Favre. Players like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have never been on the cover. Neither have players like Adrian Peterson or LaDainian Tomlinson. or reigning Super Bowl Champion QB Aaron Rodgers.

It’d be a shame for some of the game’s greats to have never made an appearance while Vick – a great player but also a highly controversial choice – gets a very good shot at his second.

Then again, this is Madden we’re talking about. They could put an undrafted punter on the box and it probably wouldn’t make a lick of difference to the game’s overall sales.

[Madden 12 @ ESPN]

Comments

  • This is like when I draw up a wishlist for my birthday and give it to my Mum. I always have to reread, trim and edit it because if there’s any duds on there, I just know that’s what she’ll end up getting me.

    • I’ve always been curious at to what people’s problem is with the online pass idea.

      The way I see it, if you buy the game new, you get the pass anyway, so you’re not paying any additional money to access the online component. If you buy it second hand, in a situation where the publisher makes no money off the sale normally, you purchase a new online pass for the game for $10 if you wish to play online, meaning that the publisher gets a very small amount of money for the resale of their product, and (in theory) the retailer should reduce the price they’re reselling the game at to incorporate the $10 difference.

      So really, what is the issue here? Note that I’m not trying to be an ass; I’m honestly curious as to other peoples’ opinion on the matter.

  • All these Spider-Man and Batman comments further prove that nerds have no place near anything sports related.

    • +1

      And anyway, with the lockout putting next season in doubt they might as well slap Jerry Jones on the cover

    • Yeah, comic characters in sports games is just bonkers.

      Now a Doctor Who theme would be good, 11 doctors means you could even field a full team!

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!