It clearly doesn't coz this setting is post apocalyptic. Suffering and death is the norm, revenge is a luxury when you are worrying if you are able to survive the next day from zombies, diseases, enemy factions, hunger, natural elements, etc. Abby isn't fking special for losing her father in that shitty world.

The focus of the story is on the characters living in the world, not the world itself. The setting is there for hurdles, tension, and tests of character. Abby is special for the simple fact that she's a protagonist and the story would be pretty boring if she was just forced to accept her fathers murder and go around collecting scrap metal until accidentally dying of tetanus.

This angle has such heavy ludo narrative dissonance when you slaughter an army of people playing as both Ellie and Abby in the game. What is next? Do we play the next game and we play a character related to someone whom Abby/Ellie killed? It is just good drama by your logic right?

Ludo narrative dissonance is a valid complaint of these cinematic styles of game. To the point that a subversion is considered novel like the twist in Spec Ops: The Line where the normal John Action Man game play is met with abhorrence at the end. You're expected to suspend your disbelief for the sake of the overall narrative. Whether you think a particular game did it well enough or not is down to taste. If it makes you feel better you can melodrama instead as most revenge stories are.

Or is Abby/Ellie the super special snowflakes that is ok to risk their friends and families lives for the sake of revenge in a post apocalyptic world where everybody and thing wants them dead.

No that's literally the moral of every revenge story. Pursing revenge will cost you everything. Both Abby and Ellie have people they lose and get killed for their choices.