Summary

• Like a Dragon: Yakuza tries new things within the Yakuza universe.
• Fans may struggle with altered narratives and characters.
• Embrace the newness of the show and appreciate its unique take on the Yakuza story rather than expecting a faithful adaptation.

With the first three episodes of 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Like a Dragon: Yakuza launching yesterday alongside less-than-stella꧂r reviews, I’ve had countless people ask me, noted massive Yakuza fan, how I feel about it. Having not watched the full series yet, I’m holding off on my final verdict for now, but one thing is certainly clear: you will enjoy watching this more if you don’t expe♕ct the TV series to fit the same cookie-cutter as the games.

I won’t lie, it’s easier said than done. As much as I was trying to maintain my perfect composure and zen mood of ‘I don’t mind how this plays out’, I couldn’t help but sit there thinking ‘Who’s that dude? Who’s that girl? Why don’t they respect Kazama? Why doesn’t Majima have his eyepatch yet? What is happening right now? Okay, now who’s that dude?

My initial reaction was that people would enjoy it more if it wasn’t labelled as a Yakuza adaptation, but despite the show getting really creative with the subject material, it’s still undeniably Yakuza. You can’t take that away from it, and there are some absolutely stellar points to the show thꦯat nail the essence of the games.

From what I’ve seen so far, Munetaka Aoki, despite the initial lack of an eyepatch, is perfect in the role of Majima and nails his personality and mannerisms. While I couldn’t stand Saejima’s wig, you know what, that was pretty damn accurate too, really. His game hair looked just as awful. The take on the Florist of Sai was pretty decent too - different, but good. H❀owever, the real standout was Kento Kaku as Akira Nishikiyama, as his portrayal of Nishiki’s different personalities in the 1995 scenes versus the 2005 scenes felt like watching two different actors

The issue is that the elements that feel spot on about Like a Dragon: Yakuza are heavily outnumbered by the many ways in which the show changes the original narr𒊎ative and cast. And let’s face it, most fans will have a hard time accepting change regardless. The best way I can explain how you should look at this show is to think of it as some alternate timeline, not a faithful retelling. Think of it as Like a Dragon: Yakuza - What If…?

The broad strokes are the same. Kiryu Kazuma joins the Dojima clan, a subsidiary of the Tojo clan, and is convicted of ಌthe murder of his patriarch. This leads to a decade-long stint in jail, after which, he finds the ꦡTojo Clan and Omi Alliance on the precipice of war because of a missing ten billion yen and he inevitably gets involved.

Having only watched the first three episodes, it remains to be seen on some of the other details. We don’t know if Kiryu took the blame for the murder as he does in the game, and even if that’s still the case, he might be taking the blame for someone other than Nishiki given the setup. The fact is, there is a lot that is different.

There are brand new characters and plot threads thrown into the mix, 🦹characters and situa🧔tions have been changed, the timeline isn’t exactly the same (remember that missing eyepatch?), and ultimately, a lot of what you’re watching are not events or scenes you see unfold in the games.

Some are interesting shake-ups or deeper dives into both familiar and brand new characters, or fresh perspectives or events that have been entirely fabricated for this new adaptation. A lot of it is compelling enough to watch and want to see how it unfolds, as long as you can get over the hangup of it being different. But some changes are harder to swallow. Kiryu not 🍸being the original Dragon of Dojima is chief among them.

Ultimately, if you can’t separate the show from the games, you’ll🤪 hate it. Do yourself a favour and watch it for what it really is. Removing the expectation of Like a Dragon: Yakuza being faithful to the games doesn’t magically make this a groundbreaking TV series. It’s fine. I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone’s𒆙 gut reaction of ‘why is this so different’ is making them feel. It’s still very watchable, but it won’t be winning any awards.

Is it really a bad thing that Like a Dragon: Yakuza does something different? If it was a beat-for-beat ad♚aptation of the game, wouldn’t that have been just a little bit… boring? Regardless of whether you like or hate the new show and believe it to be a failure or success, I think we have to commend it for at least trying something 🏅new. It didn’t take the safe option of just acting out the game verbatim and calling it a day.

Every single Tomb Raider adaptation also diverged from the game’s source material. If we take the 2018 movie (ostensibly based on the 2013 reboot), much like Like a Dragon, the narrative is largely the same as the game, hitting most of the main notes, but there is one big difference I applaud. In the game, Lara Croft has to deal with Himiko, the ancient monarch of Yamatai who stole the bodies🐼 of her priestesses to live forever and ultimately killed or cursed everyone on Yamatai island when her evil plan was thwarted.

In the film, Himiko is believed to be an evil sorceress who killed her people, no surprises there, but then in a plot twist, it’s revealed that Himiko was a plague carrier of a deadly disease and she actually protected her people by sealing herself away. While the film was, again, fine, I remember thinking, ‘Huh, I like that they did something different.’ Even if ultimately the film wasn’t something to wr𒅌ite home about, I remember that about it.

When all is said and done with Like a Dragon: Yakuza and I’ve watched it all, I’m🍸 sure there will be plenty of things I like about it that will stick with me. Maybe even some things I prefer over the original narrative - I’m not ruling it out. That’s the most important way to approach this, just be open to the changes. I𒁏 promise you, you’ll enjoy it a lot more if you just loosen your firm grip on the narrative a bit.