I just completed the game, and I am unable to understand what all the reviewers had been fussing about, which may have caused many potential customers to turn away, and has already caused Obsidian to scrap any thoughts of a sequel.
I think the problem is in the view point from which most reviewers have begun to look at games. They're paying excessive attention to the technical proficiencies, and seem to have forgotten the main objective of playing a game: Fun.
 It's like they are judges in a competition, waiting to hand out awards for how close to perfect and flawless the workings of a game are, and a re hence becoming so damn critical. Or possibly, they are in a race to prove that their technical understanding of games is outdone by no one, and that if they ignore some of the issues (though they hardly affect gameplay) and just focus on the enjoyment, they will not be taken seriously.
What's the point of a review? It's to give a basic idea to the general public of what the game is about, and whether they enjoyed finishing it or not. It's not meant to be a platform to dissect a game and point out it's flaws.
Now, I agree that what i'm saying might not be true, and that some games might have such horrible bugs that it might actually be unplayable, but believe me, Alpha Protocol is NOT such a game.
 I had a great, smooth playing experience, and I enjoyed it till the end. I actually had to search up on Google to look up on the bugs that the game was criticized for, as I couldn't recollect anything so bad in the game that I couldn't carry on playing it. 
See? I'm accepting I didn't recognize any bugs. It's not so hard reviewers, unless the bug is in your face and is stopping you from playing the game, don't go LOOKING for them.
 
Let's take a look at Gamespot's review, and see what unnecessary comments they have made about the game, which justify their 6.0 score for the game: 
 
 

The Bad

 

• Flaky, glitchy cover mechanics  
• Bland visuals marred by bad animations  
• Terrible AI affects both the shooting and the stealth  
• The story lacks soul and character.

You sense that the voice actors have done their best to lend some humanity to the story, but Alpha Protocol is all business and no fun; all plot and no character. There are light moments, such as some hysterical news reports on the television (a story about children and sugar is a fun highlight), and Mike's cocky half-grin is occasionally disarming. But these are small delights in a robotic narrative that may stimulate your intellect but not your emotions.

It's clear from the moment that you move around in Alpha Protocol that something isn't quite right. You control Mike from a third-person perspective, but the camera is often zoomed rather close to him, which is a hindrance to taking in your surroundings or navigating close spaces. If you stoop, the camera pulls away somewhat and you get a better view, though the way Mike scuttles about while crouching is laughably awkward.

 
 Sometimes you encounter walls that you can't take cover behind for no discernible reason; at other times, the stickiness of the cover mechanic combined with the close camera can make it awkward to get out of the way of an incoming grenade.You might pop up from behind cover only to discover that your targeting reticle is missing and you can't shoot your weapon--a problem that can only be fixed by extricating yourself from cover. Or for some reason you won't be able to toss a grenade from behind a barricade.

 
 It's too bad it isn't a bigger part of the equation where pistols are concerned. Pistols feel relatively weak, which is to be expected, though they would seem an attractive last-resort option if you pursue the stealth angle. But you are often put in situations that can only be solved with firearms and are clearly designed with long-range weaponry in mind. In these situations, a pistol/shotgun combo is often ineffective. If you focused on stealth and melee at the expense of ranged weapons, expect some frustrations in certain combat scenarios and boss encounters.
 

 For example, when you activate a power, the screen takes on a bright yellow tone, as if someone turned up the light bloom setting extraordinarily high. Unfortunately, your targeting reticle is a dull yellow and can become practically invisible when the effect occurs. The effect can even obscure your target. This is a big inconvenience when using the chain shot ability, which can also cause your screen to jitter uncontrollably.

I love Alpha Protocol. I've beaten it it 4 times, but I quit complaining about review scores for any game 3 years ago.

You know how sometimes people complain about a review because it neglected to mention all the bugs, and the reviewer replies (perfectly reasonably) 'what can I say, I didn't encounter those/any issues'? Well, there you go. If you're asking me to take it on faith that because your experience was entirely/almost entirely bug-free, I should ignore the majority of the reviews saying there is a fair amount of jank to the game, then no dice. If you're saying that the game is good enough that in spite of that stuff, I should still play it, then I'll listen.

Yep, I played through the game with zero problems. The comment about not being able to see due to the colour yellow is just downright retarded and false. It was a very fun game overall and the story was quite goofy, what with all the sexual innuendo and such.

I stopped listening to reviews decades ago. 
 
I really enjoyed Alpha Protocol, but not so much that I can't see that it does indeed have a lot of horrible things going for it. 
The only thing I wouldn't call horrible is the story

It's because advertising and hyping affects the gaming press as much as it does the average consumer. With two games of equal quality, the one that has more trailers and commercials will get the higher score from mainstream gaming press. It's why superior games like Metro 2033 go unnoticed, while the umpteenth iteration of a modern military shooter receives widespread critical acclaim and massive sales. Many critics also get frustrated with any game that isn't gobsmackingly easy, blaming "poor controls" when it's their own ineptitude that is the problem. Such was the case with AP; the controls were absolutely fine yet it received widespread criticism for inaccurate aiming and such, a significant reason behind its low scores.
 
It certainly had its flaws, and I thought it didn't feel fully polished, but if someone liked Mass Effect 2 (as most reviewers did) I see no reason why they would place this game much further below it. 

Alpha Protocol had a lot going for it, but it's terrible shooting, laughable animations and pre 21st century era AI held it back A-plenty. Playing on the PS3, as well, left me with a lot of washed out graphics, and that creepy half grin that every character does the exact same is, well, pretty creepy. I liked the characters and flexible story, and the game has some fantastic voice acting, with Leland, Marburg and Heck being the penultimate three, Michael Thornton himself is kinda average for the most part. He does the snarky ass pretty well, but his attempts at aggression don't sound as powerful as they could. I personally gave it 2 stars, despite me still enjoying the game a fair bit and still getting 3 playthroughs out of it, because the gameplay is so near broken at points, like the boss battles, and while it presents an illusion of 101 ways to play the game, the only effective way is to fully stealth, for the most part.
 
I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care?

Some of the criticisms of the game are misplaced because they ignore some of the fundamentals of RPG design, namely character skill over player skill. If you can't hit anything with a weapon you aren't specialised in, then that's because of character skill, same goes for lockpicking, stealth, etc. This is also true of abilities like "shadow operative" and "evasion" which take control away from the player and represent the character's skill. As for the graphics and bugs, I found those problems to be minor in the PC version. It was a decent-looking game and I didn't find any serious bugs. My main problem was with the AI, the boss designs ( which were pretty uninspired and didn't work well with the mechanics), and the poor mouse optimisation. With some fixes it's manageable though.
 
Anyway, I too enjoyed Alpha Protocol and found it to be an enjoyable, well-written RPG in the classic style. But we can expect that most reviewers don't care about CRPG fundamentals and are eagerly waiting to award perfect scores to games that are 'streamlined' (ie. poor or mislabelled RPGs).

I play these kinds of games for the story and characters, and neither of those did much for me in Alpha Protocol. Honestly, I thought it was a bit of a wash.

"  I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care? "

Look, I dunno. Alpha Protocol was a fun ride through, but it was deeply flawed. Technical problems weren't even the game's biggest problems. As good of a game as it is, it can be beaten in an afternoon, this game was just too short. There's like three countries you visit, I was expecting a lot more. This game was basically sold to me as Mass Effect with spies, and it just doesn't have enough content to hold up. Where's the good sidequests? It just kinda shows, this game was rushed, which looks bad for Obsidian because it was delayed all the time.  The shooting was also really terrible. But I liked other aspects of the combat. Melee stuff was fun, being stealthy is cool, but it kinda falls apart until you pump all your points into guns. Then you're suddenly Chow Yun Fat, and you're an unstoppable killing machine. Then the game just gets stupid easy.  
 
Basically, this game lacks balance and polish, and it suffered for it. It was a great premise, and a fun game for a weekend, but there just wasn't enough to call it a great game. It was good, but not great. It's kinda crappy that it's got all the parts of a great game, they're just not put together correctly. 

" Some of the criticisms of the game are misplaced because they ignore some of the fundamentals of RPG design, namely character skill over player skill. If you can't hit anything with a weapon you aren't specialised in, then that's because of character skill, same goes for lockpicking, stealth, etc. This is also true of abilities like "shadow operative" and "evasion" which take control away from the player and represent the character's skill. As for the graphics and bugs, I found those problems to be minor in the PC version. It was a decent-looking game and I didn't find any serious bugs. My main problem was with the AI, the boss designs ( which were pretty uninspired and didn't work well with the mechanics), and the poor mouse optimisation. With some fixes it's manageable though.
 
Anyway, I too enjoyed Alpha Protocol and found it to be an enjoyable, well-written RPG in the classic style. But we can expect that most reviewers don't care about CRPG fundamentals and are eagerly waiting to award perfect scores to games that are 'streamlined' (ie. poor or mislabelled RPGs). "

The shooting was not good in Alpha Protocol. The dice-roll aspect just isn't fun for me in an Action RPG. It was billed as "Mass Effect with Spies", and they kinda missed on that. I think that's why a lot of people were turned off and/or disappointed.

" @Abyssfull said:

"  I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care? "

Cuz there is no AP2 >:( "

Well hey. You had fun and that is all that should matter, right? I am enjoying Kane and Lynch 2 and Mafia 2 right now (although I got both of them for $5 each).

People aren't accustomed to games in that setting playing the way they play. When people want something different, what they really mean is they want 'magick' instead of 'magic' and gnomes instead of dwarves. People have a certain set of preconceptions for the kind of games that can take place in modern time in a spy setting.

" I personally gave it 2 stars, despite me still enjoying the game a fair bit and still getting 3 playthroughs out of it, because the gameplay is so near broken at points, like the boss battles, and while it presents an illusion of 101 ways to play the game, the only effective way is to fully stealth, for the most part. I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care? "

It has a lot of great elements, but it's also kinda poorly made in a lot of ways. 

" @Abyssfull said:

" I personally gave it 2 stars, despite me still enjoying the game a fair bit and still getting 3 playthroughs out of it, because the gameplay is so near broken at points, like the boss battles, and while it presents an illusion of 101 ways to play the game, the only effective way is to fully stealth, for the most part. I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care? "

See, this is what I don't get. You seem to have the same way of thinking as most reviewers. 
 
You liked the game enough to play through it three times, and yet you gave it two stars? Why?  
 
Technical issues? They obviously weren't game breaking issues, because you played through the game three times.  
Illusion of choice? Obviously there was enough choice for you there, because you played through the game three times. 
 
You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game. 
 
Which you obviously did,  because you played through the game three times. "

what drugs are you on? this game is horrible its a shitstorm i cant think of any reason why anybody would like this stinky pile of shit 

" @Khann said: 
Well maybe I base my scores differently than others? Yes, I enjoyed the game for what it is, and it was it's amazing versatility with its story and character that kept me coming back. The actual playing of it was still pretty lame. Plus I find it weird that you go against my score like it's a professional one... it's a user review, so there's little to be pissed over. ''It's not your job to point out every little bug'' ... no it is not. 
 
The 2 stars is still, for me, based on the immense disappointment I had with it, and the gameplay, again being awful, but with enough customisation towards the cast within the story keeping me engaged. Its flaws greatly outweigh it's merits, and since you clearly disagree then, you should unrecommend my review while you're at it :P "

You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game. 
 

" @Abyssfull:  It was Sega's call to not go for a sequel. Also, apparently they didn't fund the game for a year before it came out, which explains some of the flawed execution. Goddamn publishers :\ "

You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game.

I found a couple bugs, a handful of broken animations and had the AI doing crazy stuff within 20 minutes.  If someone asked me about this game, the first thing I would start doing is adding caveats everywhere.  That's what criticism is.  It's completely normal and you're probably being too defensive.

" @Abyssfull said:

" I personally gave it 2 stars, despite me still enjoying the game a fair bit and still getting 3 playthroughs out of it, because the gameplay is so near broken at points, like the boss battles, and while it presents an illusion of 101 ways to play the game, the only effective way is to fully stealth, for the most part. I barely remembered much of what GS said about it before this blog, but still, why care? "

 
You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game. 
"

" what drugs are you on? this game is horrible its a shitstorm i cant think of any reason why anybody would like this stinky pile of shit  "

" @Abyssfull:  It was Sega's call to not go for a sequel. Also, apparently they didn't fund the game for a year before it came out, which explains some of the flawed execution. Goddamn publishers :\ "

" @Khann said:

You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game. 
 

Exactly what I wanted to point out. Thanks "

I have to say this game was good fun, but it did have some pretty hugely noticeable flaws. The game made me just angry in a lot of places because it could have been one of my favourite games if they had just made several zigs instead of zags in their design decisions.
 
Oh, and also the stupidest fucking sneak animation I have ever seen.

I loved it after my first play through, but then when I played it again I got stuck because there was a lock that was just impossible to pick since I had not put any skill points into that. No matter how much I tried I just couldn't make it. So I started another play through, but this time there was a bug that prevented my from finishing a mission because I ran past guards I was supposed to kill and even when I went back and killed them I had already "spawned" the gate that was supposed to be open when you get there and so it didn't open even after killing the guards. 
 
So now I don't really love the game anymore and I'm not sure if I'll ever come back to it. It seems too easy to screw yourself over by choosing the wrong skills (as in my 2nd play through) or trigger some stupid bug (as in my 3rd play through). It's too bad because at its best it's a great game.

Those boss fights were abysmal and really ruined the game. I thought the shooting was fine and it had some neat RPG abilities, but the bad AI that likes too punch you and take control away from you makes this a mediocre game. The story was interesting, but soulless. I didn't care for anybody or the situation that was going on. 

" @armaan8014 said:

" @Khann said:

You/games press aren't bloody game testers. It's not your job to point out every little bug. It's your job to enjoy the game. 
 

Exactly what I wanted to point out. Thanks "

Considering that reviewers are meant to tell you what they think about a game and the problems/fun they have with it you guys are wrong.  If the game is bug ridden it is there job to point it out.  They also aren't supposed to enjoy the games but are meant to critique it.  If they do enjoy the game then the game did something right but to enjoy the game is not in their job description. "

I had more fun going to the bathroom than playing that game.

I loved Alpha Protocol. Yes the combat was a bit crap at times, but as Jason Borune type, I cared not. Yes it was a bit glitchy and unpolished, but the game was so fun that I paid no attention to them.
 
Amazing game, I wish more people looked past the graphics and a few flaws and saw what a great game it was. Hell more people like Deadly Premonition and that basically has the same problem

" I had more fun going to the bathroom than playing that game. "

For me, this was tied with Mass Effect 2 for my 2010 GOTY. I can totally understand why a lot of people would be turned off by it, cause frankly it was kinda broken in a lot of places (enemy AI, boss battles, and a lot of general bugs) but the setting, the characters, the intrigue, and the choices all totally sold me.  I was really disappointed to hear that there wouldnt be a sequel, because I think an AP2 could be one of the best RPGs of the decade if executed correctly.  Alas, I least I got the Witcher 2 to look forward to

For me this game is the quintessential Obsidian game.  Good ideas hidden under piles of bad design decisions. 
The graphics were bland at best, story was generic spy trash (corrupt Corporations, double crosses, a man betrayed by the country he loves!), and the gameplay is terrible for the majority of the game (even leveling something up all the way doesn't make it enjoyable).  But the biggest problem with this game was just the main character's voice and dialog.  None of the dialog options you have make him sound anything other than a complete tool.  He reads all of his lines devoid of any emotion with only the occasional bit of sarcasm thrown in to let you know that he is an actual voice actor and not a computer voice synthesizer.
 
However, as with all recent Obsidian games, they put just a few great features in there to give their fans something to latch on to.  The timed responses stopped the dialog from having those Bioware pauses in them, and the order you do missions in actually has an effect on future mission (poisoning a bosses cocaine, less enemies in future areas), and the writing (allegedly) is good.  Alpha Protocol had a LONG dev cycle, and the number of bugs and problems with this game make me unable to forgive this game for the few things it does right.
 
Honestly, I wish they were making a sequel to Alpha Protocol.  That way they could stop making incomplete (KOTOR 2) and big-ridden (Fallout: NV, KOTOR 2) sequels to games I actually do enjoy.

I did not finish Alpha Protocol but it is a game that despite it's technical flaws, was still a ton of fun to play. I will definitely pick it up again sometime. Good on you Obsidian, hope you guys crank out another one.