Why Joel Breaks the Video Game Hero Mold
Troy Baker, the actor who plays Joel in The Last of Us, has been widely quoted on his character's departure from video game tradition, saying:
"He's not a hero, he's not a badass," nor "a strong archetypal character. . . . I really think it's gonna turn the model of the hero on its ass."
— Troy Baker, voice of Joel
Naughty Dog's post-apocalyptic survival drama, which earned widespread critical acclaim, makes good on that promise, and in the process teaches us
something about what we've come to expect from the characters we play in video games.
Joel in The Last of Us represents a less-travelled region of morally complicated protagonists. Joel's decisions are brutal and goal-oriented, and from the beginning, the game denies players any indication that Joel is making them for the "right" reasons (though it doesn't make this insultingly obvious, either – until the very end, I usually found myself rooting for Joel).
This is in stark contrast to most games, where (except in games where the player is given the choice to do good or bad), characters do bad things for reasons we understand to achieve goals we could agree with – it's the means that are generally disapproved of in video game behavior, not the ends.
The Table of Contents
Character Development: From Self-Interest to Selfish Love
Joel's Motivations Throughout the Story
With Joel, I want to like him, but I realized, especially at the end, that while likeable he is very probably wrong – maybe even "the bad guy" from many perspectives. He initially agrees to escort Ellie not out of concern for her or for a cure for mankind, but out of self-interest (it's a paying job) and later because it was important to Tess.
By the end of the game, he has grown to care about Ellie, and so while the Fireflies are willing to sacrifice her life and her freedom to choose what to do with it for the chance (hardly a guarantee) of being able to develop a cure (having hastily dismissed her research value while alive), Joel also denies Ellie the right to choose her own fate, out of his own selfish desire to not lose her like he did his daughter Sarah (though the true extent of Ellie's ignorance of the situation is also left ambiguous in the end).
Joel has sacrificed the best hope for mankind (and killed probably the best brain surgeon/infection researcher left in America) to secure a happy life for himself and Ellie. And by lying to Ellie and denying her the right to make her own decision, he has also undermined their relationship, whether she ever discovers (or allows herself to admit) it or not.
How Joel Differs from Traditional Anti-Heroes
Whereas most anti-heroes in games do bad things to bad people for relatively good reasons, in The Last of Us, the character we have fought to help succeed ultimately acts against a cure, against Ellie's freedom to decide what to do with her life, and against honesty. Instead, he chooses family and personal happiness for himself and Ellie.
Though the game never really suggested that Joel's priorities were particularly "good" or moral, this ending still shocked me. In a revealing post-mortem interview, creative director Neil Druckmann acknowledged that even focus testers were divided, with some demanding the developers "fix the ending" because Joel chose to save Ellie over a potential cure for mankind.
This was partly because the game sets you up for a more traditional "zombie" or "post-apocalypse sacrifice" ending where Joel (or, more improbably, Ellie) doesn't make it, not only through genre conventions but also because it's a game, so your focus is on keeping them alive, not whether they'll make good decisions if they do survive.
The Player's Complicity in Moral Ambiguity
Having gone through so much to get them there in one piece, I was disturbed to find myself complicit in a morally ambiguous (but decisive) conclusion. Grand Theft Auto IV's Niko Bellic may be a pretty immoral guy in many ways, but you know this from the beginning, you can avoid killing innocents most of the time, and Niko's generally on the right moral side of major plot points (depending in part on player choices).
Niko is someone whose problems are obvious and whose journey is more morally acceptable than you might fear or expect. Joel, on the other hand, is someone you want to root for most of the game before realizing that you've helped him achieve things you might disagree with, done for reasons you might disagree with.
A Milestone in Video Game Storytelling
In this sense, I think The Last of Us represents a true step forward in the complexity and dramatic range of video game narratives. It is not the first good game narrative to make the player complicit in very questionable goals – both Shadow of the Colossus and Enslaved: Odyssey to the West do this well, too (there are many other interesting parallels between The Last of Us and Enslaved as well).
Comparing Narrative Complexity in Modern Games
The Last of Us exceeds Shadow of the Colossus in narrative development. Shadow's mostly silent story is atmospheric and morally troubling, but not extensively developed—relative to The Last of Us, the story is a much smaller part of that (great) game. And though Enslaved's story and acting are very compelling, the gameplay is neither at the same quality level nor as integrated into the story experience as in The Last of Us.
Why Morally Complex Characters Matter in Gaming
Not all games need complex stories with characters and events that leave us emotionally and morally conflicted – but I'm glad that some big-budget,
commercially successful games can. I'm excited to see games explore new kinds of characters, not just simple heroes or anti-heroes willing to do bad things for good reasons, but characters doing a mix of good, bad, ambiguous, and debatable things for good, bad, ambiguous, and debatable reasons.
Games like The Last of Us tell important stories that help us think through situations in which the right thing to do isn't always clear or when different right things (such as family and the general welfare) are opposed to each other and we can't have both. This exploration of moral complexity in gaming narratives pushes the medium forward in meaningful ways.
Final Thoughts: A Character That Stays With You
I care about Joel, but I have mixed emotions about him – I like him and I don't, I'm glad he reached a place of happiness and I'm furious about how he got there. Troy Baker wasn't overselling things: Joel is probably the most complex protagonist I've seen yet in a video game, and a sure sign that video games are continuing to expand the range of compelling characters and stories they can bring to life.
What are your thoughts on Joel's moral complexity? Did you agree with his final decision? Share your perspective in the comments below.
Frequently Asked Questions:
What does The Last of Us ending mean?
- It shows Joel placing individual joy over the possible salvation of humanity. Joel kills the doctors and lies to Ellie about what happened, instead of sacrificing Ellie for a cure.
- The phrase "OK" from Ellie at the end suggests she knows he is lying but chooses to believe him—creating a morally ambiguous conclusion where love triumphs over the greater good.
Does The Last of Us have a good ending?
- By definition, the ending is only as good as one's moral perspective. Many players find it polarizing—some hail it as a complex, realistic portrayal of humanity’s flaws, while others wanted Joel to die for a greater cause.
- As Naughty Dog's creative director Neil Druckmann has said, focus testers were deeply divided, with some even suggesting they "fix" the ending. The ambiguity is intentional and represents a more mature, nuanced approach to storytelling.
Is The Last of Us really a happy ending?
- It depends on whose happiness you prioritize. Joel and Ellie survive and can build a life together, which could be considered "happy" from their perspective. However, Joel achieves this by dooming humanity’s best chance at a cure and lying to Ellie, undermining their relationship’s foundation.
- The ending is bittersweet at best—personal fulfillment achieved through morally questionable means.
Why did Joel save Ellie instead of letting her be sacrificed?
- Joel saved Ellie because he couldn’t face losing another daughter after Sarah’s death in the opening sequence. By the end of the journey, Ellie had become his surrogate daughter, and his decision was driven by selfish love rather than rational thought for humanity’s survival.
- The game deliberately denies Ellie the agency to make her own choice, just as the Fireflies did, showing how both sides prioritized their own needs over hers.
Is Joel a hero or a villain in The Last of Us?
- Joel is a morally complex character—neither true hero nor villain. He commits terrible acts, like killing the doctors, lying to Ellie, and sacrificing humanity’s hope, all for deeply personal reasons. His actions force players to reflect on moral ambiguity and question whether they’ve truly been helping the "good guy" all along.
Why did Joel lie to Ellie at the end?
- Joel lied to Ellie to protect his decision and preserve their relationship. He knew that if Ellie learned the truth—that he killed the doctors and destroyed humanity’s chance for a cure—she might hate him or try to sacrifice herself.
- His lie also reveals his selfishness: he made the choice for her, then denied her the knowledge needed to make her own decisions about her life and purpose.
What makes Joel different from typical video game protagonists?
- Unlike traditional video game heroes who do questionable things for noble reasons, Joel’s decisions throughout The Last of Us are consistently brutal and self-serving, culminating in a choice that opposes the "greater good."
- Most protagonists are framed as heroes or anti-heroes with redemptive qualities, but Joel forces players into morally indefensible actions—sacrificing mankind for personal happiness—without offering the comfort of believing it was "the right thing to do."
- This moral complexity was unprecedented in AAA gaming at the time.
