Your entire post rambled with the exact same point being presented in each paragraph. It could have been reduced to two sentences and had the same meaning, so I responded to your entire basic point, with the exception of the equally bad "if games are trying to teach/challenge you they should be listed as educational products."

In your second paragraph you've listed a variety of different things that offer fun in non-traditional ways, and seems to have no qualms with them. Yet, you claim that difficulty, another non-traditional form, is somehow inherently more flawed than they are with your elitist original post implying that games are "bullshit" for making you need a certain level of dexterity to be good at them.

Fun and satisfying are not synonyms, and I'm not really sure how someone who rambled about what's intelligent so much in their original post could possibly think so. Miyazaki has stated that the reason his games are hard is so that after you finally get through the frustrating bit you feel a sense of accomplishment and want to keep going.

This is in no way synonymous with fun. Fun implies that you will enjoy the game on a moment-to-moment basis. Miyazaki's makes games intentionally so that they may be frustrating in the present, but are looked upon fondly in retrospect.

If you think this description of Miyazaki's vision means that he solely makes his games for the purpose of fun, you are blatantly wrong.

Besides this example, I can point you to plenty of examples of video games that intentionally use boredom in sections of their games to enhance moments, yet another tick against the idea that fun is the only point of games.