I'm here to defend Matthew Rorie. THE MAN IS FOND OF PUPPIES. How you gonna play him like that?
 
Well, I'm sort of defending Matthew Rorie. 
 
I'm here to argue in favor of Alpha Protocol. Admittedly, it's been a while since I finished playing it, but it comes to mind because I've been thinking a lot about interactive fiction these days, and reading Chris Crawford's awesome book about it.  Even though I've got Batman: Arkham Asylum sitting around untouched, I've had an urge to go through Dragon Age: Origins a second time (which is especially odd considering I have very little interest in the sequel), just because I'm in a really RPG'y mood. I even started playing around with Mythic a few weeks ago. Basically, I want dicerolls and choices to make about the direction of the story. Alpha Protocol has both, and it honestly compares well to Mass Effect as long as you're not expecting it to play like BioWare's sci-fi masterpiece. If you go in expecting an RPG and not a shooter, there's a great time to be had.
 
I was also reminded of the general antipathy towards the game when Chris TIlton mentioned his dislike for it in one of the E3 '11 Bombcasts. It's one thing to think it's bad having played it, but it seems like a lot of people are writing it off without having spent any time with it. I don't like that. Not in the case of other games, and definitely not in the case of this one.
 
So, it's not a great game. However, I really had no problems with it when I played through it. Well, the very end of the game sort of spikes in difficulty and is kind of frustrating, but It wasn't so bad that the gameplay in total was at odds with the greater interactive experience. Maybe if you play a different style than I did, it would have been more frustrating. I can't be certain. I've only played through it once, but I may play through it again and I doubt it'd make me think less of the game to do so. 
 
It really does seem to me like ignorant internet hyperbole has dragged this game's name through the mud, so give it a chance if you like RPGs. I finished Fallout 3 shortly before playing Alpha Protocol, and I honestly think the action in the two games is pretty comparable (except for V.A.T.S.). It's really cheap now, the story is pretty cool, and I felt like I was honestly making important decisions fairly often (which is really what I think makes a good game, essentially). You could be pleasantly surprised! 
 
Also, bonus 15x multiplier to anybody who understands the reference in the title of this blog. Not the subtitle, that's easy.

I picked it up on the steam sale. Loved the first hour or so of tutorial and I was wondering what everyone was complaining about, but once they made me play the game I turned it off in about 30 mins... It was just incredibly bad, to the point where I had so many gripes that I don't even want to attempt to list them here. 
 
Also:        

Alpha Protocol is dope.  I'm in the middle of it right now after picking it up through the steam sale.  The game is far from perfect, but I think it got a bit of a raw deal critically.

   What am I multiplying?

Don't know. Alpha Protocol scratched a really specific itch for me. I love systems, upgrade paths, etc. and AP fit that bill really well.

Aside from that though, a lot of it felt so close to being an excellent game that when it wasn't, the fall was that much harder. Also, reading through some notes I made to myself about it at the time, " There are a few systems in the game that feel like the design for them started down one path, and then either got forcibly pulled in a different direction, or meandered off on it's own. The wires n' stuff overlay screen that comes up just before allocating skill points is one case in point. "

Makes me think that another few months probably wouldn't have served the game much better. Maybe it's just bias with the stories coming out about bad management, but thinking back on AP, I'm inclined to think that's with better managers/directors, AP could'a been a contender.