Honestly, the usual reviewers are so dislocated from the concept of playing fighting games that they do not even know how to approach these games from a review standpoint.
Since the genre has its so-called revival (yeah, come at me, Capcom revival != FGC revival, etc), they keep rolling a dice and going with it - that is about it, with added stuff like how much "solo content" is there, how "cheap" the bosses are, what the "roster feels like" and what "graphical fidelity" does the game represent. That is it.
So, basically...they're reviewing the games for the intended audience?
This is a very ill concept to my ears. I keep reviewing FGC games to those that are at least willing to learn the basics, not those that buy COD and nothing else - because there is nothing that can make them not regret buying an FGC anyway if we are looking at their perspective.
I think that reviewers are partially responsible for an artificial bubble that protects their readers from playing a game that actually IS a game with solid fundamentals and real punishment. The bubble is placed for a variety of reasons, but ultimately, even if your main audience plays only shooters, sport games and racers, you should absolutely hype up games that can show a valid alternative (or a complementary experience) to those genres.
The first and biggest mistake one can make is to assume that a dumb/semi-casual/whatever audience will stay that way forever and get mad at sites if they give attention to lesser known genres/titles.