I am not a fan of FPS and generally avoid them; I bought Bioshock Infinite day 1 and do not regret it.

What got me hooked initially was the atmosphere of Columbia, I love the art direction, I love the design aesthetic and I love the music.

What kept me going was the mystery; I battle my aversion for FPS, I battle motion sickness, I ignore the relatively mediocre gun-play and played the game to the very end; all that matter to me was progressing the narrative.

What blew me away was the finale; how it effect your entire view of the game's narrative, not the blatant thing that the game hammered home to you about 2/3 of the way into the plot, but the subtle dig that takes time and effort to unveil itself.

Bioshock Infinite is a triumph of narrative over gameplay and will remain one of my best gaming experience ever, right next to the likes of Planescape Torment and Portal 2.

So yes, to me it deserve all the praise that it got and more, but I can understand very easily how someone could and would be disappointed in the game if their value in the composition of a game is less skewed than my own.

Quantum levitation is real technology and does involve magnets. A lot more realistic and believable than an underwater city imho.

Whut? Yes it is real but it certainly can't hold anything miles up in the air. Magnetic force decreases by distance cubed.
We already have the know how and capabilities to build underwater hotels.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/20/worlds-top-7-underwater-hotels
 
They're not that deep yet, but a bit further advanced then a disc floating an inch above a magnet.

So far everything is great except for the combat its good Bioshock 2 def had the best combat.

A very good game at the beginning and in the end, the middle part is boring though. The Vox Populi mission just can't keep up the standard set up by the rest of the game. The graphics are great, the sound is great, the vigors are fun, the story is awesome, the shooter mechanics are ok.

Solid 9/10

Make big enough magnets and Columbia is closer to reality than an underwater city deep deep under the surface. I mean.. in that hotel pic you can see the top of the water.

According to this guy, building a Rapture is somewhat possible even in the 50's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3TCNjyshc

Eh not really, he says the tubes and stuff might have been possible at that time but there's no way the buildings and everything survive the pressure at that depth. So basically all the little tube hallways you run around would survive but everything else would quickly wither away into nothing.

You can always work with compressed air environments underwater, sucks when you want to return to the surface though.

Buckinster Fuller designed cloud nine in the 60's, a flying city built on a giant geodesic sphere. 1 degree difference in air temperature inside and outside the sphere would be enough to lift a city for 6000 people

Much more efficient then magnetics.

What? Nahhh, BI felt the need to explain that unbelievably wierd aspect of the gameplay to the gamer because it was just that, unbelievably wierd. In BI the game asks you too often to suspend your belief of what naturally could happen. Anyways,  IMO, I think man can more pull of an underwater utopia than one that's in the sky.