Gaming

Not in the sense where they failed to make it interesting, more in the Breath of the Wild type philosophy where any side-content you do is indirectly progress toward the main goal so there's a mix of things of varying levels of interestingness in all directions. You have an organization that raises in "power" or whatever they call those points whenever you do a side quest and you need to bank up certain amounts of those power points to do the next story mission or unlock the next region. That progression is paced in such a way that you simply don't need to do most things.

Many quests are genuinely interesting but other ones are just filler. And some filler between good quests is inoffensive, maybe even a refreshing little diversion. One generic filler side quest is essentially "stand next to this portal and kill all the ghosts that come out of it". Doing that once in a while is okay, doing it as many times as there are portals to find is torture.

I still haven’t played the sequels, would you say they’re still worthwhile or is it for the best to leave the story at the end of Origins?

The short version of that answer is that the sequels do not have what you love about the original but you might also like them for the different things that they are.

Awakening feels less like a sequel (technically an optionally standalone expansion but I'm counting it) and more like a fan mod. It's nerdier, sillier, edgier, and has that high-effort mod habit of adding concepts that should logically be new mechanics but are executed by old ones because you're doing it on minimal skill and zero budget. I think that's a pretty cute vibe but it's fundamentally just Origins again but worse.

2 has high highs and low lows and, while I personally love it, it's negative general reception is very fairly earned. The thing that it was trying to do in the first place, story-wise, is something that would already have been divisive even if the rest of the game were flawlessly executed and it was emphatically not flawlessly executed. The simplest way I can describe it is that it is not a story about an adventure, it's a story about a place. You do not leave that place, you just stay there over the course of several years and experience the historically significant events that are happening there. So the narrative focus for you as a protagonist is on how you feel about things rather than what you're accomplishing.

Inquisition, conversely, is the least interesting one from a conceptual standpoint but, like, it's competent from a technical standpoint and the harsh criticisms you tend to hear usually stem from misunderstandings about its design rather than the lack of creative ambition. There's another new evil horde and you're another special dude who's the only one who can stop them and now you've got a personal army instead of being an underdog. There's more political conflict than the first game but the politics are less complex. Ultimately, though, I think the most important factor of any open world game is simply the degree to which you want to spend time in that world regardless of what it is you're actually doing and it's an interesting enough world to spend some time in. Certainly, it's worth trying for free.