You people are bad and you should feel bad, only a problem for noobs who need to git gud!
But really joking aside, this isn't a case of right/wrong good/bad but rather person preference. These are pure game design decisions that will be appealing for some and not so much for others. And where a lot of the indy magic can happen is they're not under the thumb of a big publisher pushing to homogenize everything towards the same common denominator, but rather can follow their own vision and make controversial choices like this.
Personally, I absolutely loved that part of the game design. Not just the very beginning but extending into new zones, I'd often intentionally skip past the map guy when I found him to keep the blind exploration going longer. And the non-linear design added on top of it was just brilliant. Normally I'd be happy to leave to each their own but considering how few games actually do this (the blind exploration part) I hate seeing people talk it down like its a bad thing.
The one thing I didn't really like, though I can see it being a big plus to others, is how once you've been everywhere the game switches gears to a very lengthy completionist and ultra hard combination. I kept playing because I was invested but my playtime ended up being something like 20 hours of blissful exploration and progression playing the 'main' game, then 20 hours of completionist back and forth and difficulty grind. And there was a lot on the difficulty end I just didn't do, but probably could have spent another 20 hours on. These are things I would have appreciated as a teen, so I can understand them adding that extra value to the game, but as an adult I don't really have the time for it.
Err... I'm usually the guy who argues in favor of the inaccessible, uncompromising, non-hand-holdy approach and scoffing at the safe populist approach as inferior (in other mediums too), but at the same time, not every exercise in creative freedom necessarily needs to be viewed as a good one-- a creator's vision and ambition can still be criticized for whether or not you think it works in certain instances. I don't want to cheapen instances where a stubborn creative proves overly safe AAA approaches wrong by automatically treating every attempt at that as successful or admirable.
Hollow Knight is one of my all time favorite games, and I think that letting you get lost in certain areas without holding your hand is generally a good creative decision throughout the game, but the way that it's handled at the very beginning felt kind of crummy to me, personally, especially considering how deeply you can get lost without even realizing that the idea of a map exists. If I'm not forgetting, you could even miss Cornifer and the mention of a map altogether and find yourself stuck in that black zone where a lantern is required, and respawn deep in an area where you'll likely remain lost. I would view that as questionable game design.
Also, I wouldn't view this as as big of a deal if it was just hard to find, and once you find it, you get it, but I don't see much value in having you grind for the individual items that all add up to one basic function (grinding to pay for a map and then later a compass and then later a quill, and only after that ending up with something usable so that you can finally start the game feels alot like pointless busywork to me). It brings the pace of the game to a screeching halt, and I don't know that mindlessly grinding for gold adds anything valuable to the sense of immersion, survival, or exploration, personally. That feels more cheap rather than uncompromising to me, personally.
I'm not sure I understand your last criticism, either. That point where the game switches gears to that is completely optional, isn't it? So who cares?