The Last of Us: Moralizing Death in a Violent Medium

[Note: Major Spoilers for The Last of Us and Bioshock: Infinite follow. Beware!]




“I don’t want to die,” a doctor in scrubs screams to me as I point a gun at her face. “Please. Don’t kill me.”

I turn to  Ellie, strapped to a gurney and prepped for surgery. I try to free her, but for some reason I can’t.

I turn back toward the doctor, put the gun to her head, and pull the trigger. Her brain sprays the back wall of the emergency room, and her body hits the floor.

I go to Ellie, where I can now free her of her restraints.

These are the final gameplay moments of Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us, and I can’t think of any other time in my life as a gamer where I felt more terrible about pulling the trigger.

Until this point, the game has more-or-less given you the choice to avoid killing your human opponents. Sure, there’s the occasional firefight that forces your hand, but the opponent always starts the fight. The opponent is always deadly.

Joel, the co-protagonist of the game, has no problem killing when he has to. He’s a survivor. To Joel, surviving is living by any means necessary. Any means necessary.

So when I, through Joel, pull the trigger on a helpless doctor (of which there are few left in the world), I’m breaking my own cardinal rule of survival. I’m stepping into immoral territory.

But that doesn’t even begin to touch the selfish decision Joel has made. Not only has he robbed the human race of a doctor, but he has robbed the human race of a cure for the fungal infection that has brought upon everything short of total annihilation of our species.

Why did he let this happen? Because his daughter was killed twenty years ago, and he has filled that void with another young girl he has grown to love.


Because Joel doesn’t want to feel pain, he is allowing the entire human race to go extinct.

When I finished the game, I felt a strange sense of relief. “Good,” I thought. “Ellie lived.”

But, somewhere else in my head, I thought, “Really? Joel felt like he could make that choice?”

The Last of Us uses its own medium’s morality against us with its ending. We’ve killed hundreds of people because we had to, and now we’re killing the rest of them because we want to.

Unlike some other games, however, The Last of Us doesn’t pick and choose its moments of moralizing. All of the moralizing already exists within the player.

In Tomb Raider, Lara is horrified by the idea of murder after she’s committed it for the first time. And yet, a couple of minutes later, she’s zinging arrows into men’s faces without a moment’s hesitation.

The Last of Us begins its story proper nearly twenty years between Joel’s first slaying of an individual and his next. All of the existential angst and fear he would have felt would have long been replaced by the hard shell he now carries.

And Ellie? Ellie was born into this world. She knows no other means of survival. The difference between Joel and Ellie and the rest of the world is their understanding of necessity. Like Sam’s toy that Henry makes him throw out, murder, outright murder, is frivolous in this time of survival. No precious resource can be wasted. There’s no time for emotional decision-making.

Stack this up against the games that obviously inspired the Tomb Raider reboot, Uncharted. Uncharted is the franchise that allowed Naughty Dog the luxury of making a game as ambitious as The Last of Us. It’s an Indiana Jones-style adventure focused on collecting artifacts and beating the bad guys.

And while the gameplay is some of the best of any generation, it’s hard not to be uncomfortable by the series’ blase approach to murder.

Nathan Drake kills thousands of people over the course of the trilogy, and he never once regrets it. He never questions it. There’s never a brooding moment where Drake thinks, “Wow, I’ve killed the population of a small American town. Perhaps that necklace isn’t worth all this carnage.”

Of course, the MacGuffin of the games usually awards the big bad some sort of supernatural, Earth-ending power that makes Drake’s relentless, violent rampage meaningful, but we don’t know that from the beginning.

What if Drake had killed thousands of people for a necklace that doesn’t do anything?

The Last of Us, to me, is that game. Joel, who is essentially a humorless, old version of Nathan Drake, kills (if the player chooses) hundreds of men in his quest to save the human race. And then he doesn’t. 

On my second play-through, I can’t help but think about all the senseless murder I’m committing in my attempts to complete an impossible objective. I know how it’ll end, and yet I persist.

I shoot the doctor in the face anyway.

I lead Sam into a pit of infected. I give Henry no reason to survive. I make Tess’s death meaningless. I make the near-death of my brother a trivial moment in time.


The Last of Us feels like an answer to the criticisms that Drake is too bloodthirsty and happy-go-lucky in a time where violence and its moral murkiness is at its most dangerous. It gives us the best reason possible for a person to kill, and then it forces us to make a decision that eradicates that reason. It puts a brick in our hands and tells us to kill enemies who fear death. Who scream to stay alive. And it makes us kill them anyway.

All because Joel misses his daughter. All because Joel feels the moral certitude to endager his species because he can’t bear to lose anyone else.

This year’s other gaming masterpiece, Bioshock: Infinite, attempts to settle the same issues with its violence.

It moralizes and questions your actions while you control a character who literally cannot put his gun down. And at the end of the story, it never mattered. All it took was a trip through a tear. And even then, even if the trip was never taken, there are infinite universes in which you did it anyway.

In the increasing sophistication of graphics engines and storytelling in modern games, the idea of killing an endless wave of human enemies has grown much more complicated and disturbing.

Developers have to try harder and harder to make us hate who we’re killing. They have to somehow justify the death we bring.

Bioshock: Infinite handled the issue in a post-modern rationalization. Even when you’re not killing, you’re killing somewhere else. 

The Last of Us looks at the issue and says, You killed them all. Now keep going. 

The impermanence of Bioshock: Infinite‘s finale is almost the complete opposite of The Last of Us. The temperance of an infinite world settles small deaths. However, the magnitude of Joel’s single decision is far-reaching and extremely permanent. The consequence is plainly sitting in front of us. 

The Last of Us is one of the most exciting examples of a game that strives for something more. It’s a work of art that asks more questions than it answers. It demands full attention from the player, and it demands the moral fortitude to see what’s right when moral ambiguities abound.

You Might Also Like

  • One of my favorite moments in the game is when you find out that David was the leader of the men you killed at the University, and he wants Joel dead for it. I felt like in this turn, Naughty Dog was directly taking on the criticism of the Uncharted games that Nathan Drake killed thousands with impunity. You really have no choice but to kill the men at the University, but because of that you and Ellie suffer. The game does not excuse you from these murders.

    Games largely do not give us choice over whether to kill or not, but they exempt the player and the avatar from moral wrong-doing. This is why military shooters are so popular, because the player can feel like these acts of violence are justified through war. In The Last of Us, you’ve killed people and ND says that you deserve to reap what you’ve sown, that is is immoral. Joel is a murderer through-and-through. He’s a bad man and the player is complicit in his acts, not excused from them. They put Ellie, whom surely the players have grown attached to, in peril because of these acts.

    But I find myself asking ‘what would I do if I was Ellie’s father?’ Clearly, regardless of his selfish reasons, he sees her as his new daughter. I would probably murder to protect her too, even if it damned me.

    • Christopher Kidwell

      Problem is that those were not murders, they were pre-emptive self-defense of people who would have killed you otherwise.

      Killing someone is NOT murder unless it isn’t your last choice to protect yourself from someone else or protect someone else from a third person. In this case, both the former and the latter codicils were more than met.

      • Fair point about the situation at the University. You don’t have any choice in the matter. That being said, I’m pretty sure I straight murdered some people as Joel and I’m confident he’d killed in cold blood before we met him. David’s men may have been worse, but Joel isn’t one of the good guys.

      • Cameron Cook

        Joel didn’t have to kill any of the men at the end. He made that choice, and we had to follow through with him.

        He chose to save Ellie because he was going to miss her, and he killed an army’s worth of men as a result. On purpose. Not out of self defense, but out of a desire to not lose Ellie, whose death would have perhaps saved mankind from extinction.

        For me, there were several scenes in the game where I definitely could have just gotten around the men but killed them instead.

  • Robert Vastano

    In that scene you can actually choose to kill none of the doctors. You have to wait a while before the triangle prompt appears, and so you thought you had to kill the doctor. If you had waited a while it would appear anyways (not sure if the delay is a glitch or intentional). The first doctor pulls a scalpel at you, so I killed him when I saw him reach for the weapon (I killed neither of the other doctors), but upon replaying I discovered if you shoot an area right next to him he drops his scalpel and you can walk right by him killing no one. The game didn’t make you kill them, you chose to kill them yourself.