I don't think it's terrible but it doesn't hold up well in a world where Witcher 3 exists. That game really showed how to do narratively meaningful sidequests, whether you like the on Witcher sense relying quest design or not.
A lot of the areas in Inquisition were pretty but they were mostly devoid of interesting content. Collect shards, set up camps, do the astral projection thingies and go through a bunch of fetch quests like "find this sheep for me" or "get 10 pieces of meat". Most of them didn't even have a narrative throughline. There was one where you had to refill a dried up lake, if I recall correctly, and I remember liking that because it at least showed that you did something but that was literally the only time it happened. That is the trap I hope they don't fall into again.
It's not so much about how much space you give the player, it's more about what you do with it. The first three Mass Effect games, especially 2 and 3 were fairly constrained, even when it comes to the larger hub areas but that also meant that there wasn't a lot of filler. Those games moved and I appreciated that. I'd rather have a 20 - 25 hour experience that is tight and full of highlights than a bloated 100 hour mess where I can't wait for it to be over by the end.
Of course that doesn't mean narrative and open world can't work together, I think games like Red Dead, Witcher 3 and most recently Horizon do a really good job of making that open world an integral part of said narrative. It's just that Bioware hasn't proven to me that they can do that for their franchises. I sure hope they learned their lessons for Andromeda, because in a year that has delivered a bunch of exceptional games up to this point it would really suck for a game with Mass Effect in the title to be the first big disappointment.