There is no way someone will spare someone if they killed their father in front of them in that brutal way. No matter what ever anyone says wouldn't change that. There is no way a person like Ellie who has killed so many people would spare Abby. In no universe that would happen. Abby is a shit psychopath character, Joel saved her she still killed him in the most brutal way possible.
Joel saving Abby didn't impact her at the time. She was filled with the same rage that Ellie had when she set out on her vengeful journey. It's during her interaction with Lev that she gained empathy for others, much like Joel did during his interaction with Ellie. Joel was no heroic figure either. He had done terrible things as a smuggler prior to the events of Part I. He also took away humanity's only shot at a cure for the plague by saving the Ellie, killing 100s of Fireflies in the process who were trying to do the right thing. As a father, he did what was right for him.
You're disregarding Ellie's journey throughout this game when you say that "in no universe would she spare Abby". Yes, she wouldn't have spared Abby during their first fight, had she managed to get the upper hand. She was suffering from PTSD. Those flashbacks she got of Joel's death haunted her, even after Abby had spared her. Despite that, she was trying to overcome her issues and live a happy life with Dina. It was Tommy who gave her a pivotal push to return to her path of vengeance, by making it seem like she owed it to him (and Joel).
Abby had already broken out of the cycle of revenge after she spared Ellie the second time. She wasn't even willing to fight Ellie in their last encounter. It was Ellie's turn to do the same, and she did. The vision she had of Joel playing the guitar while strangling/drowning was symbolic of her letting go of her vengeance and moving on, because up until that point, the only memories she had of him were of him getting killed. Keep in mind, all the positive flashbacks of Ellie weren't her recollecting those memories. They were shown to the player to fill the gaps between the events of part I and II.
Witcher 3 has so many characters and stories and so good to play.
I never found Witcher 3 good to play. It has one of the worst combat systems in a hack and slash rpg, and character movement isn't responsive either. It's broken af. And a lot of your time during quests is spent following a lousy red trail of scent. In my opinion, games like Witcher 3 and RDR2 are more about the experience, characters, narrative, worldbuillding, and exploration, not combat. Critics also largely praise both games for these aspects.
You say TLOU1's combat was shit, but it's a game that, even today, has a dedicated multiplayer userbase. No shooter with poor mechanics will ever find success in a competitive environment. Heck, there are even some games with great mechanics that didn't work as multiplayer games. Metal Gear Online (MGSV), for example, was dead within months of its release.
TLOU1 is better game than 2 but no way better than Witcher 3. Don't care about critics rating.
If you don't care about critics' ratings like you say, how come you were upset that both TLOU games are rated higher than Witcher 3? lol seems like it does matter to you on some level.
There are many TPS games which has much better shooting than this.
lol I'd be really interested in knowing the names of these TPS games. And even if you do find the shooting better in other games, there are other aspects here that elevate the gameplay, such as the range of combat options at your disposal, the smart enemy AI (on Survivor difficulty at least), or the encounter design.
I think maybe because I am not a fan of linear story and gameplay that's why I just consider it to be 8/10 at best.
Honestly, if, despite not being a fan of linear games, you ended up scoring it an 8/10, I'd call that an achievement on the game's part.