The upcoming console generation is perfect for a remake/remaster

I don't care. I actually have played DnD and a campaign set in the city but I don't care. I tried playing playing their previous games and it's just not for me. 
And I wasn't saying it's going to be a runaway hit. That would be just too far fetched. But it is likely that it's going to sell well enough to convince the people at EA that Bioware still has potential if the game is actually good. 
We have seen something similar with the Respawns Star Wars game. It sold well at the start with people being cautious about it because it is EA after all. But once the word of mouth got out, once people saw that the game is actually good it sold WAY better. 
So I suspect that there will be as always some initial surge of sales because it's a new rpg game and there are not that many of them but once the word of mouth gets going(of course if the game is good enough) then it will sell well. There are many people who will be adopting a wait and see position like I have. 

It's all conditional on them making a game AT LEAST the level of DAI. 

It's not really a defense. I played DA2 the first time choosing the "good" options but then I played a snarky Hawke and while he was inappropriate a lot he was also incredibly funny. I know not all people are going to like that but for me that was the highlight of the game. 

Yes, there is a particular amount of Whedon that you can take at any given moment. I also think that Whedon is best when he has constraints. I have noticed that I like his big budget movies far less than small stuff. I think it's fine to criticise the writing because we are the customers of the product they are producing. They are making a story and we would be remiss in our duty as readers/watchers/players of the story not to say "hold on that doesn't make sense". When writers start thinking that they are so much smarter than the audience that they can get away with not doing it properly that is when shit hits the fan. 

I haven't played Bound by Flame but I have completed Greedfall just today. It's a good game and considering the amount of improvement over the Technomancer I am excited about what they do next. And I kinda hope they do something new, I wasn't that invested into the Technomancer world despite finding the Mars War Logs intriguing enough to complete despite how limited it was and in Greedfall I think the story is complete. Oh I know more can be made but I just think the way it's concluded is good enough and I simply do not have a desire to jump back into the world. 

I don't know, but I don't think it was wasted BioWare developer time instead the time they had with Dice.  If the development team as is big as most AAA studios are I doubt they had hundreds of people working on the procedural content.  They might have lost development time with some other things, but in the scope of things if it was a team of a couple dozen people I doubt it impacted the other areas of the game that much.

That depends on how accurate what we know of procedural content is accurate when being applied to the game.  There was an interview just after the report of how much time was wasted with procedural content was done and what I read from that was the procedural content was on top of what we got in the game to mimic the UNC missions of Mass Effect 1 so it was just cut out with minor changes needed to the game.  So there are conflicting stories even on that one issue.  Its why I have a hard time believing any real story about the development of the game because all the information is from one source that depending on the article written I have a hard time fully believing it.

Indeed. They weren't all supposed to be hub worlds. The point was to have randomly generated maps, that would be more playable than ME1's. As the article states, though, the random generated maps, even with severely tweaked parameters to not be so "random", still produced unplayable maps that would require so much geometry tweaking, that scrapping them and starting over by hand would produce better and quicker results. Now, if those maps would have more stuff to do on them, like, perhaps, small settlements with some vendors here and there or the occasional quest, I don't know.

I'm curious, what had you heard?

Since Walters came in and took over the leadership role I am guessing that Andromeda was in bad shape and EA was showing displeasure.  That is just my guess of course since there was nothing about a change in leadership aside from the announcement that Walters took over and the reports of how Montreal was trying to make Andromeda after cutting a lot of contact with Edmonton.

As far as the condition of the game without Walters its always hard to say, but my guess is they wanted someone with experience at finishing a game in a tight timeline to get Andromeda ready for launch so my guess is it still took him a year to get the game into the condition we saw.  I think one of the biggest problems was that the leadership of the game was dead set on procedural content for the game and ignored all the warning signs it wouldn't work and couldn't let it go, but that is just a guess based on how I interpreted what I saw around the game's development.  So if they went into crunch mode my guess is the game is pretty much where Mac Walters started, but he just put the effort into finishing what content was already developed and if anything new was started it was to bridge what they already had together so it made sense.

The way I have always felt Andromeda was made was a game that had its development focus backwards. It wasn't the story that drove the development of the game, but instead it was the systems they wanted in the game that guided the direction of the story.  If they hadn't gone into the game with the whole "Exploration of ME1, characters of ME2, and combat of ME3" and just had for example "characters of ME2, and combat of ME3" it might have been a completely different story for they wouldn't have been trying to do so much with a brand new to them game engine (while ignoring BioWare Edmonton) and trying to develop something that the engine couldn't do with procedural content.

According to AskAGameDev BioWare has always had the problem of underestimating how much time they need to develop their games and that is why they have crunch for the last month or so of development and then crunching through delays.  So going by that statement I think even if BioWare had the same amount of time for ME3 there would have been things cut that would have been interesting for the time they needed wouldn't be there.

There is nothing wrong with trying to path of what another studio did in the past, but the problem with Spider Studios is they directly compared themselves to "Old BioWare" which was a massive mistake in my opinion.  It set expectations of what they game would be like and from what I saw it was a divisive result where some people feel they captured that and others didn't.

If they want to try the elements BioWare pioneered go for it, but don't say you are going to be BioWare.

It was in one of the old interviews, but it could have been a one-time deal and I am thinking of it like a lot of people put the "artistic integrity" onto BioWare.  Of course since so many people compared Greedfall to BioWare I cannot seem to find it.

Edit: Going back I am going to say that it was someone misquoting comments from The Escapist interview, for I know I  read it somewhere but it seems the only interview I can find is that one.  It still gives me the impression they aren't trying to be themselves when making the game for they are aiming for touchstones of another developer.  Much like how BioWare was maligned when they made the Call of Duty comparison when designing Mass Effect 2. They were just talking about adding a better shooter experience to the game and it was taken they were going to make the game a Call of Duty clone which was all made in reference to how disliked the combat in Mass Effect 1 was.