Stretch wrote on 2022-12-15, 23:11:
Are computers fast enough now to have graphics exactly like the cover art?
The question is poorly worded. Technically, computers have always been strong and fast enough to do this so long as the marketing department incorporated actual screenshots into the cover art.
The problem is there's no way to ask that in a defined way that will mean much for most games since there's still a wide range of box and disc case cover art styles. And then you've also got to define how "exact" it has to be, as in pixel perfect down to skin pore details? Or can it be a bit more forgiving to say, "Yeah, the box art might be slightly higher fidelity, but not in a way you'd notice in passing"? At the very least you'd need to allow for a difference in resolution between game and art, because using a 2 megapixel image for a 5"x7" print cover would look quite poor.
Pedantics aside, there have been several games that have prominently used in-game graphics ( or very close to ) on their cover art. The Ratchet & Clank games have been pretty close to their cover art since the PS3 days; the new Rift Apart is a dead ringer. Intentionally stylized cel-shaded games could be considered as advertised on the tin. MS Flight Simulator has been pushing computer hardware since it was first released in the 80s, and I'd say that's true advertising on the cover. The FF& Remake wasn't too far off its cover art. Forza Horizon had a big fidelity jump going from 2 to 3, and FH4 and 5 are dang impressive.
Obviously any game that photographs real human models for the cover art won't be exactly the same in the game due to hair alone. And of course a lot of games intentionally use completely different type of box art than the game, like GTA's cartoon-based art.