Not inconsistent with this, what seems warped to me is having these huge expectations for individuals after their first success in the first place. (Writing this thinking about someone like Romero working on something like a game; lot of what follows doesn't carry over to, say, music or writing.)
They needed talent to pull it off, but also lots of stars aligned for a bold experiment to work out, and true experiments don't always work out. Conversely, for each success there were many talented folks who tried good ideas and didn't see them work out. The more surprising the first success was, the more foolish you'd be to expect a repeat, it seems like.
If that's the basic problem, you can't "fix" it in the sense that you can't make someone keep churning out revolutionary new things. But you might get better outcomes and fewer embarrassing failures the more you think of individual talent as one factor. Folks still have to iterate, get feedback, work with good people, sometimes put a lot of work into an idea then see it they have to rework it, or even release some quick experiments that don't do that well. You don't maximize your odds of great results by sending someone off to work in isolation as long as they want.
One thing I see hints of here and there, but don't really have a great picture of, is the inner workings of organizations that produce new/weird but successful things more than just once. It interacts with business, luck, and changes in the world outside of course, but internally--how do they balance single vision vs. input from many folks? Do they build a lot they throw away? Do they go outside the team a lot for feedback (in Romero's world "playtesting")? Of course there's no one Right Way to do things, especially across domains, but it could be fascinating to see a bit more how various places work.