I'm going to make WK's favourite game which involves a feature to randomly spawn an invisible trap anywhere in the stage. Games don't need to be fair, right.

I think you're wrong though, in many aspects of life where it's reasonable to compare it to a game, it is fair. If you exercise for a marathon a lot more than other people do, you will be very likely to beat these people in a marathon. If you practice boxing two times a week, you are very likely to be better at boxing than someone who doesn't practice boxing. In IRL fighting competitions, it is common to study the opponents fighting style in order to be able to tell when he's going to do what, aka telegraphing his attacks. There aren't any random chances of instantly losing built into the rules of real life sports. There's no rule in soccer that says "the referee rolls a dice, if it lands on 82, the home team's keeper will take a 10 minute break".

I think games and sports in real life is what it is most natural to compare games to, and these often have a good deal of fairness in them. Most of them strive to be fair, and then why shouldn't games do the same? A game can be hard even if it is fair.

I think being able to avoid failure based on skill is integral to "playing a game". If you need to rely on luck to not die, it's stepping into gambling territory. I'm usually not very fond of gambling against a machine. Against humans, it's different, because then you can play the mind game against them.