Yes.
They're both spoiled with easy difficulties, but plagued by not getting a finished and complete game when paying full price for a new game.

For the first DS game that wasn't the case for several bosses.  In order to survive against one of Seth's area attacks for instance you had to stay completely close to him, but the natural instinct is to move or stay as far away as possible.  Why would you even consider this option in the first place?  You'd have to get lucky and think "Eh, I don't care let me just restart..oh what!?  I'm alive!"  This was a simpler instance of logic in this game too compared to the two below.

There was this one boss, the bed of chaos.  He would swipe his hands across this area just fast enough that you needed to jump off the cliff and into this small narrow path to get to the area needed to kill him, but the thing is there's no indication that you would even need to go jump into this pit.  You can't see how it would be important until you actually jumped into it, so why would you consider it?    Ceaseless Discharge also had this weird method of killing him, for some reason he dies if you get him just close enough to the entrance, attack him once at a specific moment and he...falls even though he's standing.  Wut?

I just do what I've always done throughout the years, playing on normal difficulty, if it's too easy then I'll crank it up a notch. I've never really been that type of gamer that loves to bust his knuckles though, I usually know when to call it quits and come back later or just stop completely and move onto something else.

Gaming didn't exist before PlayStation. In fact it doesn't exist outside of it right now, that's why Souls games are the only ones considered as difficult in the OP.

I agree to some extent. Some games only come with the difficulty option and are generally too easy. Then again, hard to a seasoned gamer can be impossible to others.

No, for the most part. There are difficulty settings in most games for a reason. Some people lack the manual dexterity to play certain games on harder settings. There's absolutely no reason, from any standpoint, to exclude them.
I remember my dad being really interested when I was playing Bloodborne last year. It made me kind of sad telling him that there was absolutely no way he would be able to play it.

taking more time isnt tranlated into being more hard, most open world games are very easy. We are oversupplied with games as well compared to the 90s

yes arcades were on their peak in 1995

In the past a lot of games were very difficult so you had to take a gigantic time to clean then, that was only to hide that the game in fact was very short...

I like to enjoy my games, so I'll try easy or normal for most games, and if I really like the game then I'll challenge it on hard, even more if there's a trophy... Now if the trophy is cumulative them I'll start on hardest needed and grit it for a game/series/producer I know I usually like.

I honestly don't see how is that different from what I'm trying to say. There is always a way to avoid the attacks, you just have to figure it out as you try any fail because it is not always obvious. Like in Seth's battle. It is a design choice to let's the player die, but learn by trying something different in the process.

Ceaseless Discharge fight had a "cheap kill" that is true, but it is optional, hidden, and makes sense if you paid attention to who the level was designed. I don't think anyone would figure it out without watching a guide or something. However it is not how it is supposed to be. He fell in a very deep valley of lava (1:45) btw. He was not standing after he made the jump.

Agreed to the Bed of Chaos though. It is unconventional platformer kind of fight, like Dragon God from Demou's souls. I personally hated those. Nothing against platformer kind of fight, but I think it doesn't fit skill based game like Souls.