Something I think is important for designing games & learning/teaching them is the distinction between getting better at passing skill checks vs avoiding said checks.
Since both of these things are ultimately skills and part of becoming good at a game, let me make a cleaner distinction :
Fuzzy Skills - Skills which are the sum total of a lot of inter-dependent factors. Think decision making, reaction times, precise execution, anticipation, etc. If, when thinking about how to improve at a skill, the path forward is very unclear and muddy, then it's likely you're dealing with this sorta skill.
Discrete Skills - Skills which have a low amount of inter-dependency. All sorts of smart strategies fall into this category - puzzles, knowledge checks, memorization, muscle memory, etc.
I'm 99% sure someone else has made this distinction already and used better terms than me, but I'm too lazy to check so bear with me.
As a general rule of thumb, the more inter-dependent a skill is, the more discouraging it will be to learn for players because it will demand a much more holistic analysis of their own playstyle - which isn't even possible until they are good enough. Fuzzy skills require the players to develop an eye for nuances, so they can spot when they're improving in small ways. What's more is they are often straight up invisible - players won't know there's anything to learn and will just assume it's talent, as happens with bullet hell shmup dodging, or beat 'em up decision making.
The one big caveat here is that some fuzzy skills are incredibly intuitive, usually because they're heavily based on stuff the players are familiar with from the real world - like physics systems. That can counteract the discouraging nature of learning fuzzy skills.
Discrete, isolated skills feel good, they make us feel smart and as a result create a constant positive feedback loop for learning. The same logic fuels a lot of simpler puzzles. I think a greater focus on discrete skills is what makes the simpler combat of Castlevania and Dark Souls more enjoyable. To me, it's what makes games like Shinobi 1 and Rolling Thunder 2 (and Psikyo games to an extent) an absolute blast to learn beginning to end, even if I won't necessarily be revisiting them too much.
These types of skills are great for teaching players - if you want them to learn a genre that's filled with more fuzzy skills, making things more discrete will help players get into the groove. They also tend to be memorable since they're discrete "points" in the player's mental map of the game, while fuzzy skills are more like blurry general areas.
Both styles of challenge can be extremely fun and rewarding, or not. And since there's only so many ways in which games can be challenging, players might get tired by certain styles/combinations of challenge through exposure, then maybe come back to them later.
IMO this starts sucking in "dishonest" games. Ones that promise or build up a rich fuzzy set of skill checks and then undermine them in favor of discrete checks. That's when games start to deflate in my mind, and leave a bitter aftertaste.