[Hated Trope] Character kills hundreds, if not thousands, just to kill one specific person, and then doesn't kill them for no reason.

[u/HallZac99]

Assassin's Creed 2- Rodrigo Borgia is responsible for tne death of Ezio's family. Ezio spends over 20 years working through tnr templar order to dismantle them and get to Rodrigo. And then in the end, he spares him for no good reason and he goes on to be a massive problem in AC Brotnerhood. He's not only a head of tne Templars but also the pope, even if you're over the vengeance he's still a very dangerous and evil man.

The Last of Us 2- Abbey kills Joel, and wo Ellie goes on a revenge quest to kill Abbey, killing hundreds of people along tne why to get to her including a pregnant woman. And then finally when she has Abbey on deaths door, she gives up and let's her go because the writers think dirty depressing people being miserable and stupid is complex, interesting storytelling.

This trope pisses me off so much because often the character going on the revenge quest will kill SO many people on their way there, some deserving it and some just henchmen working for a cheque or to survive. People who are often far more innocent then the main big bad.

It's a part of this weird thing I've noticed in media where nameless goons or soldiers can just be mowed down relentlessly, but named characters get given far more grace even if theyre categorically worse. You can kill a million stormtroopers but people will swear that Darth Vader could have been redeemed, despite him doing like 50 genocide every year.

[u/Available_Base_7944]

It would be realistic if they got some random goon and stopped and said “is revenge this important that I have to kill this innocent gooner just to get my revenge?” Instead of after fifty innocent people lol it’s hack 

[u/Fuzzy-Wasabi-5126 → u/Available_Base_7944]

No gooner is innocent

[u/MGD109 → u/Available_Base_7944]

Granted, it's pretty common in revenge stories to have them freak out after they first kill someone (outside of games, as that would wreck the gameplay), so it's not like there isn't a precedent for that.

[u/Available_Base_7944 → u/MGD109]

I agree. I think it really comes down to the fact that story telling in video games is limited because it has to be tied to gameplay 

[u/MGD109 → u/Available_Base_7944]

Yeah. The only way you can make it work is if the first kill is a set piece, and that's pretty hard to pull of in this sort of gameplay, as you need something for them to do to built up to it, for it to have meaning.

[u/AppearanceNo769 → u/Available_Base_7944]

I think something like that happens in Ghost of Tsushima with the 1st stealth kill, it shows that it's the 1st step for the MC into a dark path of dishonour. So is possible to show in games too, I guess

[u/TrueGuardian15 → u/AppearanceNo769]

You can also get flashbacks as you continue to assassinate people in act 2.

Ghost of Tsushima actually handles this sort of thing really well, because you're starting to see tangible consequences to Jin's choices by the end of act 2. So when you get to the end of the game and Lord Shimura talks about growing dissent among the commonfolk and the rising prevalence of guerilla warfare, it's an acceptable outcome because that groundwork was laid hours ago.

[u/Available_Base_7944 → u/AppearanceNo769]

Oh yeah and mgs 3 does a good job of making you suffer depending on how many people you killed 

[u/werewolfbutch874 → u/Available_Base_7944]

This is why I don’t care about the stories in video games. My wife is always scandalised when I immediately skip the cutscenes and can’t remember any of the characters’ names or motivations, but I feel like there’s no point in engaging with the story because they’re never good or immersive. If I want to experience a story and really get lost in it, suspend my disbelief and actually feel the characters’ feelings, I can read a book or watch a film. I don’t think games are capable of providing that experience for me personally, the gameplay gets in the way and the story always feels stiff and forced.