You can call Battlezone the first RTS/FPS, you could call Natural selection the first, you would all be right. Those are really just different approaches to the blending of action reflex gaming with RTS base and unit building. Natural Selection's and Battlezone's buildings are usually more simple then normal RTS games however. The first game though that can really be said to combine the 2 genres however, is Magic Carpet.

That being said, I believe Good Vs. Bad 2 is better then all of them. Unlike Natural Selection and Battlezone it has more then the full palette of building types to build (more variety then say starcraft), BUT all the fighting and even building is controlled from a first person/3rd over the shoulder view and is completely human controlled. There is no AI control or "dice rolling" battles.

"The good thing about this is the resource boon to the industry... as more and more money is generated by subscription fees, the justification for much bigger game budgets becomes a viable option."

This is bad for me in every way. I only care about gameplay in games, not storyline or graphics. There is very little new fun styles of gameplay that are required to be MMO or even just run by pay to play servers. If everyone starts making these games it will be very boring. Secondly, I want way less game budgets, as they are spent making games not focused on gameplay and instead into stupid wannabe movies for nerds with manbreasts who live vicariously through the main charachters.

The requirements for this game, compared to the gameplay, make me want to run to Mom and play MAME. On the other hand Good Vs. Bad 2's ratio of requirements to gameplay swings the exact opposite. By the way, has anyone posted more scans from this article about the game?:

http://rain.prohosting.com/phole8/article.jpg

Please let me know.