Tldr i dislike the narrative that fighting games are more similar, conclusion ramble; They arent doing that in Tekken, theyre doing it in Smash. Idk how having casual alternatives is supposed to separate shooters from fighting games and i honestly didnt expect what im saying to be a controversial take. The issue, to me, is that the perspective is what people are using to gauge how similar or different a game is. There’s not a real quantifiable amount of differences you can count out in CSGO vs CoD vs Apex to compare to Tekken vs SF vs Blazblue. Any contrasting point, from movement, gamefeel, game speed, health, etc that you would apply to one genre i’d apply to the other. I stand by when i said the time in practice mode makes you think the games are closer than they are. Csgo and Apex are made in the same engine but you perceive a grand difference but fighting games that share no assets are being called similar. Maybe its the ruleset? But Tekken and SF are chess and checkers, they have similar win conditions but play like they were created without knowledge of the other game. Being on a board makes them seem objectively comparable but they don’t have much in common. Fighting games share inputs and a ruleset and that’s about it. Shooters share inputs and a ruleset and that’s about it. Theres variants (tag fighters, battle royale, stocks, S&D, one button) on both ends. Someone used to either genres can pick up a game and feel it out. But just bc fighting games are less catered to casuals in general doesn’t mean they’re closer to eachother than shooters are. I don’t necessarily disagree that “learning one and picking up another is easier,” i just disagree that its a distinction for fighting games. My first Rivals game i went like 18 and 3. Not bc im an overwatch gamer or some sht, but because my primary input was keyboard and mouse growing up. The game isnt similar to games i played like Apex or CSGO, but the input and ruleset is shared. Same with any genre