Legend of Korra was good until the finale. That last scene making a stupid fandom ship canon brought a bunch of SJWs into the fandom.

Its also like as if The Last Airbender was made today, they would have shipped Katara with Zuko :P

More like Aang with Zuko or Sokka With Zuko.

Realy anyone who dares to say Korrasami had development is delusional. And the worst part is not that, but Bryan Konietzko's heterophobic response to those who did not like it.

Wo, the odwnrep abuser is back. From 14 to 7 without explanation.

I would not know because I never got into Korra. Korra just seemed like a meat headed tomboyish girl.

I thought Avatar Kyoshi was a better representation of a female Avatar and they showed less of her.

But what really alienated me was 2 things:

1. The radically different setting. We are in basically 1940s New York in the form of Republic City with a Steampunk side to it. Steampunk is not originally and unique. And the fact that the show is predominately set in it. Avatar the Last Airbender we saw a whole WORLD. Here its just the City.

2. And the fact that I could not sit to watch a whole series of Avatar. I hated waiting and WAITING for the next episode or season. Heck I was worried that The Last Airbender was gonna be padded in its first season to the point that they will never reach the north pole until 50 episodes have past.

ATLA was great, and LOK was very good, but the problem was that they wanted to get attention with cheap shots. Right in the middle of the third season of LOK, Nickelodeon decided to make it an online only show and poull it from TV because it had low ratings and it was getting too mature. A few episodes after the change a character was choked to death with air bending on screen. But what sucked about LOK, aside of Korra being a subpar avatar and overall main character, was the last scene of the finale, making a lesbian ship canon with no real development just sucked.

The first three seasons were actually very good, and the fourth season was rather decent until the finale, I swear a different closing scene would have made things a lot different. Even now the fandom is divided over the finale, and half of it feels alienated by it. I am part of that half.

So, I've been thinking.... I've been pro-GG for almost a year now but I think at this point it might not be for me now. I really love all the people I've met in it but there's too much going on.

See, I believe that all this fighting against social justice warriors and corrupt journalists isn't going to make much difference in the end. I dislike the SJWs as much as the next GG supporter and I'd consider myself "anti-SJW" but I've thought about it and it doesn't really seem to be SJWs and radical feminist types are going to have that much impact on gaming as it is. We'll still have our Call of Duty and Halos every year. Those games sell and "SJW" type of games are always going to be niche. Yeah, we'll see SJW ideology seep (as it already has) into gaming but that really doesn't trouble me that much. The games that sell are still going to be made and that means the games most of GG supporters like and want to play.

I mean, hell, there's games some people would call "SJW-like" that I absolutely love like Mass Effect, one of my favorite series of all time. If that's an example of an SJW game, I honestly can't say I wouldn't want more of that anyhow.

The other reason is my main concern with gaming is not SJWs or bad journalism, but - and this is very appropriate for here - the DRM and preservation issues. What really worries me about the future of gaming is DRM and how we're going to preserve games for both ourselves and future generations. It seems too many people are simply passive on the DRM issue and that scares me more than any SJW / unethical journalist could ever do. That's why I adore GOG so much and personally consider it one of the best things to happen to gaming in maybe a decade - or at least be thing to happen to game digital distribution.

In short, while I believe in GG's goals, I'm not sure if it's for me anymore. And I can't help but after seeing Queeny call it quits, for just one example, that maybe it's time to move on.

Maybe I'll be more enthusiastic when and if GG ever tackles the DRM issue....

I agree with you on something. If GG wants to figth against general corruption in gaming in general, we must stand against DRM. But giving up on the fight is not a choice, if we give up we could actually see DRM increased because of hipster "artists" who want more money.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Gamergate should give up on anything. I still support what they do. I'm more or less speaking my mind. I'm speaking out loud here. I just don't know if it's for me so much, now. It's my personal opinion no matter what, we'll always get the games we want. We'll never see SJWs take over the industry. Games like Call of Duty, Halo, GTA, Dark Souls, etc. make way too much money. Even if the SJWs "win" and Gamergate "loses", not much will have changed. Not unless the industry wants to lose money and they're not dumb enough to stop making games the gamers want and release Gone Home and Sunset clones. And no, I don't think there's a conspiracy to kill the industry honestly. In the end, it's still a business. People want that money and they know what sells.

My point, I suppose, is that I'm more concerned with other aspects of the gaming industry that GG doesn't cover. That being DRM/preservation. For me, that's a much more important and much more immediate threat imo. SJWs/corrupt journos won't change gaming that much. DRM very much will.

Considering how the SJWs tainted he comics industry for years, I actually think they are a real threat, and if they win DRM will grow stronger. Remmeber that SJWs tend to support DRM, even companies in good terms with SJWs such as EA and Ubisoft are prominent supporters of DRM, because in the end SJWs are all about restriction and power.

What? Firstly, when the hell did social justice ruin comics? Last time I checked, it's been the same general mix of superheroes and indie titles that it's always been, some good, some not so good. Secondly, where are you getting this idea that social justice somehow encompasses embracing DRM? Even some of the people I know who run the gambit of being kind of confrontational about social justice (I am assuming that they are the "SJWs" everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist over) are not fans of DRM since, you know, it has the nasty tendency of screwing with the games they paid good money for; it's almost as if they're consumers with concerns about their stuff not breaking, just like everyone and their mother.

Well, I don't have all the sources on the information, but there were some codes of content (Mostly inclusivity) which SJWs tried to enforce in comics with a varied degrees of success, which made the content of comics rather stagnant. On the matter of DRM, consumers stand against it, producers not so much.

It happened in the 50s I hear. The more recent examples are Thor turning female, some female comic character using the term ''mansplain'', general talk of feminism = objectively good, and addressing enemies as somehow antifeminist, and of course the whole shames of $JWs taking out their disapproval of how characters are dressed on the comic artists. They're trying to bend comics to fit their worldview. When a Batgirl comic cover had Batgirl looking scared and crying while being threatened by the Joker. They cried enough for the artist to change thee cover. Not even gonna pollute it my proGG opinion, they forced a change because they didn't like it. Evaluate it as you please.

SJWs have a pattern: they will attach themselves to anything that is perceived to be undeniably good. Equality for genders is a good thing for instance. I'm sure all of us have at least a mother, a sister, a girlfriend, a wife, a daughter or a even just friends and we wouldn't want them to be treated like inferior citizens, right? Who wouldn't want to agree with that? Who would say "no, I want my sister to be a subordinate"?

What then happens is that is attracts the kind of people who want to be the best among the good. They are in reality bad people, and they will bully anyone just so they can show off what good people they are. Take the Mattress Girl case or the Rolling Stone rape article, in both cases people took justice in their own hands rather than waiting for investigation. Why would you do that? These are the same kind people who a few decades prior would have lynched black people. They do it because it makes them feel superior.

SJWs have the most success infiltrating groups that are socially less adapt. There is a reason why comics, cartoons and video games are so infested. People were so desperate to gain mainstream acceptance they were accepting anyone with open arms. Very bad thing to do.

I am a small-scale software developer and as such I very much like the Free/Open Software initiatives. Of course I would like it if everyone and their mother were to embrace libre software, but let's be realistic, that will never happen. Remember the GitHub rag of meritocracy? It was essentially a carpet in one of GitHub's offices that said "United Meritocracy of GitHub". It was removed by the new CEO.
https://archive.is/Wj2q9

Now let's think about this: open source is about everyone contributing the best they can. Imagine a group of people in the wild trying to build a settlement, everyone will find something they are good at and do that thing in order to make a good settlement for everyone. There is no room for politics. Open Source is similar, either write good code (or documentation, or interface or web presence) or GTFO.

Open Source is a good thing, right? Of course SJWs want to be in it, but they lack skill. There is no barrier to entry when it comes to open source, I am the proof of it. I wrote a tutorial to Vim, all I had to do was just do it. The people who accepted my pull request have no idea who I am. And I did not even have any special education, I learned how to use Git, Vim and how to write through freely available resources.

But the thing is that nerds are, generally speaking, not the cool people. Many want to be liked, they want to be cool and they will bend over for that. Case in point, this is the code of conduct that GitHub has been promoting for open source project hand has been adopting for a while:
https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct

Here are some excerpts, emphasis by me: So yes, you can get your account suspended for writing *hug* to someone without asking for permission and you are not allowed to complain. You can always identify an SJW by the fact that they attribute blame instead of responsibility. I'm saying this now: Silicon Valley is the next Detroit. The reasons are different, but the outcome is the same. I have already shut down my premium account and moved my private repositories to another service. Linus Torvalds was a prophet when he designed Git to be decentral.

Nah, the finale was just the whole train wrack finally crashing, but it has been a train wreck form the start. I'll give the first season a pass because it was meant to be just a one-time thing. The entire series has problems from start to finish and the final scene is just the last punch to the guts. It was still watchable though, and I'm the kind of idiot who has to finish a show once ha has started watching it.

The Comics Code Authority was an alliance for self censorship among American (and only American) comics publishers, established in 1954, to avoid actual censorship by the state.

Amongst other things, the CCA was the reason why homosexuality was not even alluded to in comics for decades. There's your censorship.

Things are changing now due to the abandonment of the CCA and due to more and more creator owned comic series (e.g. the entire image comics range). What the US comic market has experienced in the last 15 years is founded on the enjoyment of the freedom e.g. the franco-belgian comic culture has always thrived on.

To portray this diversification of US comics (after half a century of delay) as "SJW censorship" and in fact as a continuation of the 1950s self censorship doesn't make sense at all. We now have the topics and depictions that were banned, and that fact is now seen as agenda driven.

Do you really think there's less violence in comics than yesterday?
Do you really think there's less erotic content in comics than yesterday?
Do you even have a simple clue about comics, Jesus H. Macy?

Come to terms with the fact that the creators of popular comic series, like Saga, are doing exactly what they want to.

Come to terms with the fact that 'attacks' on those creators are coming from a wide variety of social outrage activists, including other creators and, of course, you guys.

http://comicsalliance.com/saga-fiona-staples-dave-dorman-breastfeeding/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/apr/11/apple-saga-comic-app-store-ban
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8252361/batgirl-dc-canceled-cover (note the paragraph about where death threats came from)

Your precious "SJW" cardboard enemy concept has, once again, nothing to do with anything.

There's still very graphically violent comics stuff with laughable female representation (with at least one extended rape scene) and completely flat one dimensional characters out there, if anyone's interested? I recently read 1,088 pages of it, it's called "The Walking Dead". I hear it's quite popular. And it will continue forever, don't worry.

Fan uproar, in comics, is usually created when the target group is missed by a mile (see Spider-Woman cover problem). In comparison, try finding outrage over Alan Moore's "Lost Girls"! And that's basically rule 34 stuff, folks.

Seriously, dudes. Give a lady a break here.