You'd have a hard time finding another RPG from this gen that can top the things it does. People tend to just look at the broken combat and say it's a horrible game. These people are why we have Mass Effect 2 and 3 representing the "RPG" genre now.
People calling it an average RPG are saying that it is an RPG, and it is an average game, not saying that the RPG parts of it are average. They are evidently all it has going for it. There is no need for you to get snobby about all of this, either, even though you evidently froth at the mouth at the thought of people wanting their games to have quality gameplay.
If that is the case, then why are innovative and complex RPGs never even close to being as polished as their "safe", boring counterparts? Compare ME1 and ME2. Or just look at Obsidian's own Dungeon Siege 3! Totally polished, that one.
On the other hand, almost every single great game in the WRPG genre ever had some polish issues.
Stop and think for a second about what you're arguing. This is not about scope, or budget, or what have you. Alpha Protocol is not broken because it's some amazingly large game bursting at the seams with content. It's broken because it was designed poorly, because it was ported poorly to PC, and because it was implemented poorly. Skill based aiming is a bad idea. The stealth mechanics are totally unbalanced. The hacking controls are fucked.
You would be right ot say that there is a correlation between ambition or scope and jankiness, but you can have well designed and implemented mechanics while also being innovative in several respects. Alpha Protocol does not.
So is the Mass Effect series, but minus the stuff that AP does great.
Mass Effect 1 has bad gameplay, ME2 and ME3 are "average" at worst.