Sure, that's part of the issue, but it's a bit of a different issue. Then again - it's their job to come up with something better than Infinity War/Endgame. Whether or not they can is a different story.
This is a common argument I hear, but imo it's more of a deflection. It's (at least implicitly) equating the quality of the experience with the gravity of the stakes involved - and I don't think it's that easy. At all. You can have great, epic stories without "universe-shattering" stakes. In fact, I find it very important to NOT slip into the death spiral of power-inflating one-upmanship by having every new set of stakes beat the previous ones. That gets out of hand real fast.
Now, it's understandable WHY people would make that equivocation, and it's by no means easy to follow an act like Infinity War/Endgame. But it's not like you need the bigger massive big boom-boom that beats the previous massive big boom-boom in order to be a better movie. Look at, say, Star Wars, and how many people would argue that Empire Strikes back is better than A New Hope despite it not really having stakes near as big as the Death Star.
And that's just not happening here. At least for me.