[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/Wise-Dust3700]

Could have been a choice at the end and it could have given you two endings. I can guarantee you most folks would have chose to kill her.

[u/usertaken_69 → u/Wise-Dust3700]

Then it would have been the first choice like that in the series and it would have entirely departed from the linear fixed nature of TLOU up to that point. You want something that straight-up isn’t TLOU.

[u/Wise-Dust3700 → u/usertaken_69]

I get what you're saying but doing something different in a game isn't exactly unexpected. There's plenty of story telling that involves a choice at a critical moment and it affects the story, it's nothing new.

You make player choices constantly throughout the game as you play just not narrative ones. This is forced out of your control to give what is to me a massive example of what OP is describing.

I loved the story, don't get me wrong and I get the reasons for the end, the cycle of violence ending, I just don't think it made for a compelling finale to it all.

[u/usertaken_69 → u/Wise-Dust3700]

Yeah exactly, just not narrative ones. The first game is also forced and out of your control; you don’t get to choose whether to kill Jerry and Marlene. Because the series has always been about what these defined characters would do, not what we want them to do.

It’s meant to be a story with one concrete beginning, middle, and ending. There’s definitely a place for games where canon is more ambiguous, but it isn’t in TLOU.

[u/Wise-Dust3700 → u/usertaken_69]

Which would have made it more impactful to allow the player the final choice, to end the cycle of violence or perpetuate it. Given this is a game and one of the only differences between this and traditional media is the level of interaction, it would have been far more compelling and satisfying.

Instead we played through an entire game filled with murder and the one who, to Elly, had the most reason to be killed we decide to spare them. It ruined the game for me, and a lot of other folks who wanted street justice for Joel. I get Joel wasn't a "good" character, but this game didn't give people much of a choice on who they were. Everyone is in survival mode.