Yoko Taro vs. Teddy Roosevelt: A Clash of Worldviews

What would happen if the mind behind NieR:Automata—a game that questions the meaning of existence—sat down with the 26th President of the United States, a man who charged up San Juan Hill with a sense of righteous duty? Yoko Taro and Theodore Roosevelt come from wildly different worlds, but their ideas about humanity, morality, and action place them on opposite ends of a philosophical spectrum.

## What Were Their Core Beliefs?

Yoko Taro is known for crafting stories that question the value of life, the illusion of free will, and the cyclical nature of violence. His characters often find themselves trapped in systems beyond their control, searching for meaning in a chaotic world. He doesn’t offer easy answers—his narratives are designed to make players feel discomfort, to sit with ambiguity.

Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, believed in the power of individual action and moral clarity. He saw life as a series of challenges to be met with courage and integrity. His worldview was rooted in the idea that people could—and should—improve the world through bold action.

If they debated the purpose of human struggle, Yoko might ask, “Why fight at all if everything repeats?” Roosevelt would likely reply, “Because it’s the right thing to do.”

## How Would They View Moral Responsibility?

Yoko Taro’s work often suggests that morality is a construct, one that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In Drakengard 3, for instance, the protagonist commits atrocities while believing she’s on a righteous mission. The game doesn’t excuse her actions, but it forces players to consider how easily good intentions can become corrupted.

Roosevelt, by contrast, had a firm sense of right and wrong. He believed in justice, in standing up for what was right even when it was hard. He championed conservation, trust-busting, and fair labor practices—not because they were popular, but because he believed it was his duty.

Put them in a room together, and Roosevelt might challenge Yoko: “If nothing matters, why make games at all?” Yoko might respond, “Maybe making games is the only way to ask the question.”

## Did They Believe in Progress?

Roosevelt was a man of action. He believed in progress through effort. He expanded national parks, fought corruption, and pushed for the common good. To him, progress wasn’t inevitable—it was something you had to fight for every day.

Yoko Taro’s worlds, however, are often stagnant or doomed to repeat. His characters are caught in loops, unable to escape fate. In NieR:Automata, androids and machines fight endlessly, neither side remembering why they began. The cycle continues, and the characters are left wondering if anything they do truly matters.

If Roosevelt heard that, he might say, “So what if the world is broken? You still try to fix it.”

## How Did They View Humanity?

Roosevelt believed in the nobility of the human spirit. He thought people could rise above their baser instincts and build a better society. He had a rugged, almost romantic view of humanity—flawed, but capable of greatness.

Yoko Taro’s view is far more cynical. His characters often struggle with identity, purpose, and despair. He doesn’t offer redemption so much as he explores the cost of seeking it. In his stories, people are often pawns in larger systems, shaped by forces they barely understand.

Yet there’s a strange overlap: both creators are fascinated by the human condition. Roosevelt saw humans as heroes in the making. Yoko Taro sees them as tragic figures searching for meaning in a meaningless world.

## Could They Ever Agree?

Perhaps the only place they’d find common ground is in the idea that struggle is central to life. Roosevelt embraced struggle as a test of character; Yoko Taro presents it as an inescapable reality.

If you could bring them together, the conversation might not end in agreement—but it would be unforgettable.

On HoloDream, you can ask them both what they think about fate, action, and whether anything we do truly matters.