How does the kingdom building compare to previous attempts (Crossroad keep, or Dragon Age: Awakening stronghold) when it comes to management itself, and integration with the roleplaying part?
Oh boy... Ok the best metaphor I got for the kingdom management of pathfinder is it's like a nagging wife who you married young but after you married she completely let herself go and it turns out her personality is horrible, yet as much as you hate her you have to stick with her for the sake of your newly born children. And any time you are out having fun, you get constant angry calls and texts from her asking where you are, and you need to come back RIGHT now. And the drive back home is something stupidly long and it turns out she only wanted you back for some stupid minor thing or to yell at you.
Basically at first kingdom management looks fun. Oh I can place buildings in towns? I can like develop my towns and shit, and placement matters! Oh I can assign people to deal with problems and events and sometimes this leads to interesting semi rp moments where you have to decide if you'd rather want your general to kill bandits or help some peasants, but omg you haven't got time to do them both, which to go for?
But then you learn to loathe it. You need to return to your throne room at least once a month (and in practice, much more frequently then that since you don't know in advance if the advisor that wants to talk to you urgently wants to chat to you for some unimportant thing that can wait or if it's some emergency that you need to attend to immediately or suffer negative consequences), and the frequent trips will mean seeing a lot of loading screens, leading to a lot of dead game time as you just wait and do other stuff instead of playing the game.
Then you start realizing how utterly pointless buildings are, the real way to raise your stats is through successful resolution of events. And that you're better off saving your bp for either feast events or advisor training opportunities, then finally trade agreements if you've managed to squirrel away that much. I don't think I built a single military building yet military was a stat I was able to max easily, I guess my nation built entirely around brothels, breweries and taverns have bred a sturdy bunch.
Anyways kingdom management just ends up becoming a major distraction that keeps you from actually playing the fun part of the game. Also you never really get to see the impact that your style of governing does nor does stats seem to matter in the game. You could have max military and your guards will still be the same as if you were mil 1. You could have rushed to max out loyalty and have the mood of your people be content, yet for a story event people will still be equally as pissed as you as if you ruled with an iron fist and neglected nurturing your people's loyalty and love.
In conclusion, the integration of the 2 systems are poor, if anything it's segregation. What happens in 1 system is independent of what happens in the other, yet the kingdom management will keep interrupting your adventuring and demand your constant attention. The one fun thing is the court visits and dilemnas but they are tainted by association with the worst loading screens of the game so even those will lose their shine fast.
I'm sad to say this but... Out of the titles you listed, Dragon Age Inquisition did the keep thing best, not only was it less obnoxious to navigate yet was still a big chunk of play area, but you felt more of an attachment to that place then you ever do in crossroad keep or your kingdom in pathfinder. Inquisition keep also evolved with time and you could put your own personal touch on it, and there was some areas like the forge which felt like a second home when I played it and I legit enjoyed returning there to just forge some new gear or tinker with people's inventory before setting off again. I never experienced that same feeling with either of the other 2 games.