Video game adaptations have come a long way from the early 2000s, when nearly every single one was derided. With the likes of The Last of Us, Fallout, and even Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, video game adaptations have become great pieces of media in their own right — not just because they capture the games they’re based on. But that’s the key of what makes a great adaptation, the fact that it actually “adapts” something, and doesn’t just flat-out copy the elements of what made the games popular. Amazon’s newest video game-based show, Like a Dragon: Yakuza, is the perfect example of this, and picture proof that we should move past an obsession with adaptations having to be just like the game.
Like a Dragon: Yakuza is based on Sega's two-decade-old franchise of the same name. The Yakuza games largely take place in a fictional red-light district of Tokyo called Kamurocho, and have become well-known for a unique brand of zaniness mixed with crime melodrama.
But a key ingredient to the Yakuza games is how they’ve been inspired by Japanese Yakuza genre films, like Outrage, or Drunken Angel. Fans in the West may not be aware of the robust genre that’s popped up around yakuza storytelling in Japanese cinema, and the Yakuza game series has always been heavily, heavily inspired by that cinematic history. This even resulted in the casting of Takeshi Kitano in Yakuza 6 — one of the most prolific actors in Japanese film.
That’s what makes Amazon’s Yakuza show so interesting, as it feels like the franchise truly coming full circle with a live-action adaptation that liberally uses the tropes and ideas of yakuza film — things like a slow build-up that results in one massive battle, or two “brothers” having to duel each other. You could list out the parallels between Sega’s series and the genre all day.
Now, Like a Dragon: Yakuza isn’t a perfect show, it has plenty of flaws — including a slow first episode and some meandering plotlines. But if you look at a lot of the fan complaints online, it’s that the show doesn’t feature some of the game’s “elements,” like karaoke, a goofier tone, missing characters, and changed plotlines.
But that’s the exact problem with how we perceive and approach adaptations at large — seeing them as some kind of checklist that has to have our favorites, characters, moments, and gameplay ideas. Video game shows, movies, or anything else shouldn’t just be a laundry list of everything we want, they should be different experiences that strive to impart the same meaning or feeling that the games make us have.
If you’re looking at Like a Dragon as simply not having what the game has, yes there’s a lot to critique. It’s a prestige drama that does away with a lot of Yakuza’s levity, but it’s still there in small doses. Yes, character plotlines are shifted and altered to accommodate a six-episode TV show, serving more as inspirations than translations. Yakuza blend of weird and serious quite literally only works because it’s a video game — the series deliberately separates the self-serious main story from the bizarre side content. There simply isn’t a way to translate that mixture to another medium, because the fact Yakuza is a video game is vital to its identity.
But what Like a Dragon gets right is that “spirit” that makes Yakuza special. At its core, it still manages to tell a harrowing story of found family and being forced to confront the ones you love. We also get to see Kazuma Kiryu’s struggle as he goes from a child to an adult, and how society left him behind while he was in prison.
These are all key elements of Yakuza’s storytelling but grafted onto the bones of a drama. The show takes key plot points but transforms them to fit its own story and themes, and that’s exactly how it should be — Like a Dragon: Yakuza is a good show on its own.
I always question what the point of doing a straight adaptation would be — why do we simply want the games in live action? That adds quite literally nothing to the series and its place as a piece of art, just rehashing what we’ve always seen. A TV show or movie should be something wildly different. Even if an adaptation ends up not being good, I’d much rather its creators were ambitious and tried something new. Those games will always be there and nothing will change that, but moving into TV or film provides a chance to draw in entirely new fans, and find a way to express what video games might not be able to.
That’s exactly what some of the best recent adaptations have done. The Last of Us’ best episode is an entirely new piece of story about Bill and Frank’s relationship, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners was such a success because it tells a deeply emotional story that stands apart from the game, and Arcane used the basic structure of League of Legends to craft an emotionally-charged narrative.
Ironically, it’s kind of the same conundrum as Disney’s live-action remakes of its beloved animated films. Movies like Aladdin and The Lion King suffer because they’re trying to emulate those animated films, without the recognition that the very fact of it being an “animated” film is the most important key. Disney’s live-action versions have largely failed to add anything new and meaningful, and we shouldn't condemn video game adaptations to the same fate.
Video games are an interactive medium that you really insert yourself into, and other forms of entertainment simply aren’t that way. Because of that, the integral structure of things should change, even if it means you’re favorite little detail or character doesn’t make the cut.
