Okay, I see where you're coming from. To explain myself, I've noticed people tend to make games "inspired" by those old-school classics without fully understanding WHY something worked in those games. It's less "work horse/you never played them" and more pointing out minutiae you seem to have missed or forgotten. Also, keep in mind that your game only has one simple area right now; your friends most likely didn't bring the issue up because it isn't a huge issue YET.
Sorry if it feels like I keep harping on the same thing, but your response seems to ignore the other point I tried to make in my last post: if you're gonna keep the physics, you should change the level design to make that section less annoying.
Think of it this way: how often do Mario 3 and Super Metroid make the player jump on multiple single-tile-wide platforms in a row, if ever? How much time does it take for the player to reach those segments from starting a new game (without sequence-breaking)? How long are the segments themselves? What total percentage of the game do these segments make up? Are these segments mandatory, or is there an obvious branching path the player can take instead? How do your answers compare when the same questions are applied to your game?
To be fair, there IS an old-school game franchise that has single-tile-wide platforms early on like your game does, but that franchise is Mega Man: a series where your momentum dies completely upon letting go of forward in midair--the very thing you're trying to avoid (so you should avoid the early single-tile-wide platforms, too).
I understand why you made the game like this--no need for more insight--but do you understand why having so many single-tile-wide platforms in a momentum-platformer isn't a good idea? Do you understand why your inspirations rarely did this and never did it so early?