I agree, Lckman99.
There's a good deal in common between the two games, especially since the grand sweep of history featured in both games was seen as a key failure in EE.I certainly never played more than a few epocs at a time and NEVER touched the future stuff: robots gathering pumkins? Give me a break!.
Empires is fundamentally a direct sequal to EE,(Was I the only one who loaded it up and thought, 'oh...'?), and a few observers regarded RON as guilty of stealing the concept of EE. However, RON proves that many players DO enjoy progressing through large numbers of epocs without becoming bored or frustrated, and that it can be a thrilling gameplay element.
BigHuge clearly had something to prove with RON, and the game shows an attention to detail on every single level of it's production, coupled a sheer love of the genre that few other games (let alone other RTS) can match. Love it or hate it, that much is undeniable.
I think that the release of Empires has created a real debate over the future direction of RTS. I wouldn't go as far as to describe Empires as a backward step, but it has certainly brought precious little inovation to the table.
If nothing else, Empires has forced me to re-examine the entire genre. I'm certainly more critical of Empires than any other RTS I've played in recent years.
But I'm still playing Empires every day and still thouroughly enjoying it. It's great fun to play, but it's too flawed to be a great game. Yet.