It is true in saying that this game IS hard to beat, but like you said, it is possible. But as other reviewers have said, the way in which you made the game hard is what brings the game down. Though this game follows the same concept of the original game you based this off of by having traps everywhere, this game does it fairly poorly. One example is when you are hit by something that either flies up at you from the ground, or down at you from the air, the character can die even when you can clearly see that the character wasn't touching the object. Of course, you noted this in your description, but you seem to think that by saying 'This isn't an average game" it somehow justifies making the game faulty. You basically noted every fault you made with the game and then said "That was on purpose" to make it seem like it is perfectly fine. I suppose the hitboxes worked in your favour, as it made the game a lot harder, but if that is the case, then there is no other way to describe it as poor game design.
As for the part where you say that people hate games that don't agree with the usual concept of how games work, you say this as though it is a bad thing. The usual concept of games is that they are usually made with the intentions of having no bugs or issues that will otherwise make the gameplay unenjoyable for the audience. All you did with this game is make it stand out from the others for the wrong reasons. You took a game, took the exact same gameplay elements, but made it worse.
However, the game's difficulty is notably easier than the original. It didn't take long to adapt to the hitboxes, and eventually I started to progress though the game faster than I expected.
In fact, I got to the first boss, where Pyramid head would walk back and forward swinging his cleaver. For the first few tries I actually did jump around the platforms and failed. Then on the 3rd time I got distracted by something and closed the tab, while the game was still in play. About a minute later, I go back to find that I somehow managed to beat the boss by doing absolutely nothing. I honestly don't know if this was intentional, but it seems a bit odd that in a game that is advertised by the creator as incredibly hard and mind breaking, you can beat a boss by standing still and doing nothing at all.
As for the art of the game, it was generally pretty nice to look at. Maybe it is just because I like the style of art that the artist used for the game, but I usually found it pretty enjoyable to look at. The music choice wasn't that bad, but it wasn't great either.
I can understand making a game that was poorly made intentionally, as I have made 2 of those kinds of games myself, but your description gave me the impression that this isn't a joke game, and was a serious effort to make something good. But when people started pointing out the faults with it, you say that it was the game was made with those faults on purpose. A serious product should never have faults with it.
Though I enjoyed the game somewhat, I still think that it could have been way more than what you intentionally made it out to be. If you had avoided the mindset of "Glitches in a game makes it harder, I will do that and not accept any criticism for it", this game would have been way better.
And I seriously suggest that if you ever need to write an edit in your descriptions, you don't make yourself seem like an asshole.