

“Harbinger of failure” is the term you’re looking for. Not sure it applies here, though; I think most of these games were commercially successful.
And because I can’t resist sticking my own opinion everywhere, I personally thought Starfield had a ton of potential and squandered it with some highly questionable design choices and poor execution. Some of that may be fixed now, but some of it is baked in. There’s genuinely a lot to like, but as a whole I thought it was really dragged down by some of those bad decisions.
I also liked AC1, though, and was a little disappointed with 2. The first one was imperfect but bold and new and interesting. The second got rid of most of what made the first one unique in an effort to appeal to broader audiences. I still liked it, but it wasn’t special.






Imagine a kingdom. The king is the main guy and indisputably the most powerful. But the king has vassals who are each powerful in their own right. If all the vassals agree that the king is an insufferable bumblefuck doing them all more harm than good, this is a real problem for the king. The king can, in that situation, probably get away with a lot of shit for a long time while the vassals gather strength to oppose him. Each vassal acting individually would be an easy target for the king. It may take concerted action from almost all of the vassals to be able to successfully mount an opposition at all, even if only a partial one. Just because the king eventually fucks around hard enough to find out doesn’t mean he’s not the most powerful guy in the room until that time.
Note that it took a majority of the board to give this guy a paid vacation. He’s definitely the main guy.