You do, though.

I get that this is all haha funny funny to you but playing games is like learning to ride a new class of motor vehicle every new game. If you can't understand basic principals like becoming intimate with your controls and understanding subtle nuances of the game you're playing and it's rules, you're misunderstanding a large part of why games have servived the way they do. People write academic papers and go to school for this stuff. This isn't hippy garbage. It's science and math and phychology and deliberate game design.

I'm not saying that you don't look at difficult bosses as a challenge. What I'm saying is the the reason you like that challenge isn't because "duh it's really hard," but because you understand how to overcome that challenge and that understanding comes from a deep understanding of how the game works. You know how to overcome it anyway. Because you've grown so intimate with the game, or you know that you will, that you know that you'll be able to beat it anywayin spite of that difficulty. The difficulty of just the perameters build to force you to express that earned intimacy in an impressive and satisfying way by closing the margin for error when not adequatly expressing that intimacy correctly.

Defeat isn't supposed to feel good.

What if you're supposed to feel angry? Then you are totally immersed in the game.

Defeat isn't supposed to feel good.

Oh believe me I know it's science and all that but it still won't stop me from not enjoying a game based on it;s difficulty, this is why I tend to play normal difficulty mode because I play the games for their stories and for fun, challenges and getting everything on a tick list or trophies are the very last aspects of a game I buy into games for. I can still get "intimate" with a game without having to bust my knuckles though, I can get to know it inside and out and avoid said challenges. 

Actually, you're right.  I can bring up Myst again.  Many people who started up Myst for the first time were probably only familiar with point and click adventure games of the Sierra / Lucas Arts variety. Amass an inventory. Use your items on the environment or other items.  Talk to people, etc.  Myst was a completely different experience at the time.  No back story, no descriptions, no instructions.  Just pops you into an environment. It's up to you to "solve" the game. You start thinking differently.  You move around.  You interact with things.  You flip switches. You see what happens.  You observe.  You listen.  And you begin to see how the designers think. You begin to think and observe in a different way.  A way that is more in tune to how Myst works.  So that when (if?) you solve the game and start in on the second game, it's "easier".  And I use that term loosely.  It's not easy.  Not even in the slightest.  The second Myst game (Riven) is a brutally difficult exeprience that puts the original to shame.  But you already hit the ground running. You don't need to get used to how things work anymore. You play within the rules that the first game set.

You just reminded me that you can miss a complete optional yet lenghty and rewarding dungeon area which has also ties to the main story (and some funny easter eggs altogether) in Tales of Vesperia if you don't happen to travel all the way to a certain part you've already visited in the world, in a crucial plot story moment, despite what common sense might tell you. It's baffling, and there's no second chances; proceeding forward the story and coming back won't trigger it. So I can say I totally relate to that one.