That's something what I will never get. How can criticism, may it be justified or not, spoil one's fun with the game? If the game were good and the criticism were not justified, so what? If the game were good and the criticism were justified, where is the problem? Well, it starts looking differently if we'd assume the game were not good... Then I could understand your notion. It clearly is no fun to get this fact presented all the time. Another point: seems to me that the ones who always mention Civ4 are the "defenders". As soon as somebody says anything which could be understood as criticism, out of a sudden a lot of people "remember" that the allegedly year after year played Civ4 was so much worse. Actually it seems to be a major part of the "defenders" who should go to the Civ4 forums. Civ5 mainly gets criticized because it is a weak game, to say the least. And this has nothing to do with Civ4, this is based on its own flaws and faults. That the best selling game of the franchise so far get's used as a reference is not very astonishing.