Seems the word from Sega is they won't be funding a sequel for AP, because the review scores were generally too low (60-70 on metacritic I think, depending on version).
I think it's a shame, I found the game very enjoyable and would have definitely bought a sequel.
It required a tolerance of slightly aged graphics, and some bugs, but games like Fallout 3 had similar problems and got away with it...
http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/98607-alpha-protocol-sequel-already-nixed.html

Not suprising really. Sega really do need to focus more on quality titles, as save for the Total War series they don't have a lot going for them right now. It's lucky for them that Steam removed the metacritic ratings from the publisher pages as they were getting shamed by that. I'm still hoping that Colonial Marines will turn out to be worth its massive delays though.

I have...mixed feelings over Alpha Protocol. Some of the time I was completely immersed in the story and characters, and unlike most people, I actually found the combat system enjoyable. Also, there were not nearly as many bugs as I had been led to believe. There were quite a few, but I was expecting more. The main problem for me was that at times the dialogue felt disjointed, and by my second playthrough the entire game felt rather disjointed, as well as quite frustratingly arbitrary ( i'm looking at you, embassy level.)
As for a sequel, whilst I would quite have liked one, would raise certain problems. How would it work, Agent Thorton runs Halbeck? (corporate intrigue!!!) or Agent Thorton joins another secret agency, gets betrayed again? the only way it would work would be new characters, new setting, or a prequel of some kind. Having said that, I would like to see more games like this in the future, shooter/RPG hybrids ala Mass Effect etc.

I love this game finished it 4 times already. Too bad.

That's too bad. I was looking forward to playing AP when it was in the $5-$10 range. I still will buy it, but it's always nice to have a sequel coming out soon when I'm playing the games a year+ later.

From my understanding, AP's bugs involve nigh unplayable minigames, broken levels, and broken gameplay.
F3's bugs were mostly along the lines of semi-broken quests (not as big of an issue since they were sidequests) and a "broken" VATS system (never noticed that, but I rarely used it). That is the difference.

Well, for me (and I do realise people have different experiences) Fallout 3 was a far more buggy game.
I had one CTD with AP, whereas I had to do a lot of tweaking to avoid CTD and freezes in FO3 (and even then, I still have problems).
As for the mini-games, AP was designed for the xbox controller which I was using. So I didn't have any issue with those (I hear there were issues with the mouse controls?).
Didn't have any issues with broken gameplay or levels. Perhaps I was lucky?

I very much doubt that review scores are the reason, sales I could imagine but not scores. It sure as hell deserves a sequel to let them work out the issues and make an even better game
Dunno where you're getting your understanding from but its sure not from playing the game I played

From what I have seen, game play and mini games are not broken. Shooting sometimes does not work on certain ranges but I think it's because each weapon has a certain range. Aiming is rpg like so you have to level up that skill.

It's annoying people claiming the game being buggy or broken etc and having NOT played the fraking game.
I played 4 times through the game. Each time as a different type of agent and explore as much as possible.
I had ZERO crashes and I will have to struggle to remember any bug.
I played as gun ho and as silent assasin, both work fine. I used all the types of weapons after training and as far as you use the right weapon for the right job, they work without a problem. I was watching a youtube video from some smack the other day claiming the shooting was broken. He had a shotgun and was running around shooting without proper aiming or even stopping then complain that because he hardly killed anyone it was the game's fault.
And I am sure 100 idiots read this and watched it and went on to friends or forums to claim with authority that the game is broken.
As for the mini games, I played the game with a xbox 360 controller and at least with that there was no such thing as broken mini game. You might be too slow for some mini games, but that is why there are armor accessories which help and training.
If you still can't play them, then there is something wrong alright, just not with the game.
The graphics are the only thing that I could see as problematic AT TIMES. And that mainly some less detailed textures and nothing more serious.
For me the game is one of the best of this year. I can understand people not liking the game, but people who claim the game is broken they are either lying or are idiots.

This is a real shame, this game was amazing. I played it 3 times already to see what happens working for each side.
I have to say it really pisses me off how a bunch of morons where bashing this game and calling it broken and unplayable when the fact of the matter is they didnt know how to play it.
See, from what I realized while browsing Alpha Protocol fourms is alot of people go in completely ignoring the part where it says RPG and try to play the game like its Splinter Cell or Gears of War when At Level 1 you just cant do it. It seems pretty obvious to me you wont be a Master Sneak at Level 1 or Rambo at Level 1. Its just amazing how many people had be calling it broken because they couldnt do these things while a noob, they didnt even really bother playing further into the game.
I think whats even more amazing is it seems some reviewers did this too. I can say without a doubt I never had problems like this, once I maxed out my sneak skills or my gunplay skills I was able to play like Solid Snake or Rambo, the game was not broken. People are just too stupid to understand what RPG means.

Upon further reflection, my two biggest problems with Alpha Protocol were the stupid AI, that would half the time charge at you or just stand around rather than moving to cover, and the ridiculous, uncreative, bullet sponge bosses.

The bosses were a problem, defintiely, especially the grenade spammer one. What I think they should have done is given the bosses the abilities you can get so they can do the limited invisibility thing, the pistol chain shot and the like. Obviously you'd need to have some ability to counter them, say they telegraph the action by a second or 2 so you can quickly dive into cover if the boss is lining up a chain shot on your face or give an invisible one the usual movie cloaking shimmer thing

A controller is the best way to experience the minigames, and if you aren't using one they suffer for it; the hacking minigame, for instance, uses the mouse and WASD in place of the analog sticks without putting any thought into it--rather than clicking on hacking segments directly you need to push the mouse continually in the appropriate direction to move the little box thing into position, which defies the very purpose of a mouse. Unlike many other games enabling controller support disables the keyboard and mouse controls, so if you want to play the exploration parts with keyboard and mouse and have a controller on hand for the minigames you will need to toggle the setting each and every time. Not fun.
Another issue with the keyboard and mouse controls is that there is no walking toggle, you can only run or sneak. It's clear that they put no thought into the native PC controls.