I'm quite fond of Obsidian but I've never understood the crazy fanboyism they attract (like in this thread).
For every outstanding game they've made, they've made an almost equal number of grossly inferior offerings that were simply dull, broken and not worth the time.
Given that Pillars of Eternity was one of those outstanding titles, I am a little bit cautious about what to expect from ANY game they make next.
That said, given that Mass Effect is effectively an unlicensed KOTOR, they'd probably do something a lot like KOTOR 2 (which was one of those dull, broken offerings). I'd not hold out any great hope for it. But at least Bioware have already broken the Mass Effect universe. So Obsidian can't be blamed for that at least.
Honestly? Because most of the people who criticize Obsidian's lack of QA standards tend to turn a very blind eye to other companies who have long had the exact same issues, like Bethesda, or Ubisoft, etc, when many of those companies, LIKE Bethesda have had a just as long history with releasing bug riddled "final products."
The major difference imo, is that Obsidian is generally stuck according to contract guidelines with publishers, due to their independent status, while companies like Ubisoft and Bethesda can put as much time into their products as they'd like to, but they still choose to put out games in unfinished states at release. So people tend to view it as a subject of hypocrisy when people single out Obsidian for it.
I don't think anyone realistically believes Obsidian doesn't have a problem with getting overambitious, then running out of time on their deadlines, which leaves literally no time for proper Q&A. When Ubisoft gave them the time they needed for South Park, customers got a very well polished and bug free game, but I don't entirely blame publishers for some of Obsidian's problems, because it IS solely on them for signing those contracts and being forced to adhere to them.
Their fans tend to react to people with legit criticisms the same as people without them, because for every blind Obsidian fanboy, there tends to be a hater whose only criticism is "I HAET THEM AND THEY ARE SUX."
I also tend to think that there tends to be this sort of expectation now that games shouldn't take that long to make and shove it out, which is why we have so many problems of late. Arkham Origins and Arkham Knight, both buggy at launch, AssCreed Unity, glitched to heck and back, Skyrim at launch, and a whole host of other games. People keep expecting massive grandiose games to be put out in a year, and with the massive teams that that requires, there's no way in hell you can expect a yearly release schedule to NOT have quality issues.
Then take Obsidian, who isn't a massive company, and has to make do within the timeframes given to them, often on unrealistic deadlines, (I quote the case of New Vegas especially, because Bethesda gave them a shitty Gamebryo engine, a limited timeframe, then told them they had to hit 8s to be able to lay hands on the Fallout IP again.) Now, in that case, in Obsidian's shoes, you have a shot to be able to work more on the same property that a lot of the people employed at Obsidian created and loved, or you could tell Bethesda that you're sorry, that's not enough time to get a realistic project out and watch some other cheap studio without any love or respect for the brand shit out a monstrosity, while never getting the opportunity to make Fallout content again. What would you do?
I realize I'm sounding like an apologist and that's not my intent, I'm just trying to explain why I tend give Obsidian more of a pass than other companies. They've given me games I love and had a hand in other companies that created more games that I love, (Arcanum, V:tM) and created games that while glitchy, still have a unique identity that is, in my opinion, still good. None of them are perfect, but they're flawed gems, due to edited or cut content and performance issues.