Oh I would agree on CS1 being worse than the sky games but it's not like bad, BAD. CS2 and CS4 have real issues especially when it comes to the main story. CS3 was extremely well paced though.I have only played Sky Trilogy and Cold Steel 1, and even if I'd say that Cold Steel 1 has worse pacing than the Sky Trilogy, it's not that bad IMO. I enjoy world-building a lot. I will play CS2 soon, so I'll see. And I strongly disagree that Xc1 or Xc2 have bad pacing, the games feel exciting all the time to me. I know that Xc2's chapter 4 is famous for being boring, but I didn't even notice that. I enjoyed both games from start to finish.
On the other hand (and to return to topic), the pacing in DQ XI felt really bad to me, the short stories that were not interesting (a half of them maybe) and the overall lack of a good villain or global plot made me feel like everything was slow and uninteresting. And Act 2 was the worst offender of all, returning to all the cities with minimal changes and no fast travel, and the shorter and less impactful stories destroyed any sense of good pacing for me.
I generally play games with a completionist approach so Xenoblade 1/2 are actually atrocious pacing wise and I very much like those games. Xenoblade 1 is actually one of my favorite JRPGs but you can't deny the onslaught of very mediocre quests after every main story section is a big yikes. There is barely any intention and flow to that side of the game as if someone just copy pasted certain quest archetypes until they reached a certain number for each area and not bearing in mind how it would play.
Compare that to the sky games where you have like ~4-5 sidequest average each new place which also drive learning to know a place(well maybe except the extermination missions although kiseki has used some of those for subtle foreshadowing). There is waaaaaaaaaay more intention in the pacing there than for Xenoblade 1/2.