Yes and nowadays no one would even bother put in that much effort. They would have an AI generate the box art and the jokes. The jokes wouldn't even be funny, but no one would care because "human jokes aren't usually funny."
One of my favorites: https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/i3kr2z/humor_...
I'd be kind of tempted to give these box art images to an AI and ask it to make the game. I suspect there would be much amusement to be had in seeing how they do at a cursed task like that.
That's why no matter how good AI gets, it's only ever as good as the human effort put into it. It's very good at being very technically mediocre.
Your point here seems to be based more on faith than anything concrete. It is a sibling with the idea humans have "immortal souls" and the like - something we would like to be true more than anything that actually is.
This being said, I do think AI systems are very bad at creativity. But I don't think that it's impossible that they could be, nor do I have any idea why, specifically, they are bad at creativity. At this point in interpretability research, anyone telling you they do know is lying.
No, I'm not invoking the concept of an immortal soul, and it's incredibly frustrating that this is the go-to assumption anyone makes when criticism of AI's creative capabilities.
It's entirely possible to be a pure physicalist while also believing AIs aren't capable of creativity because they aren't capable of being human, and don't have the necessary human experience to inform the processes they simulate, because creativity is fundamentally a means of human communication. That isn't actually an argument from the supernatural, and unless you believe it's possible to derive a brain simulation of Hayao Miyazaki complete with his lived experiences and memories simply by studying the specific technical aspects of his animation style in aggregate, then I think the why of AI's limitations in this regard should be obvious.