| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
126
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
Let me explain a bit. I've submitted this poll because I feel that current TBP/PU category/niche system is inadequate; there are 94 categories but they're VERY unbalanced: 'Hardcore' has 4000+ sites, 'Balloons' (what Balloons have to do with porn?) have only 8 sites, that's 500x difference.
So I feel that categories would be more useful if minor niches like 'Bukkake' (33 sites) or 'Cream Pies' (61 site) are merged (as subcategories) with bigger ones like 'Cumshots' (471 site). As for other examples - 'ATM' (13 sites) can be combined with 'Anal' (303 sites), 'Cheerleaders' (17) can go into 'Uniforms' (89), and 'Trampling' (18), 'Spanking' (99) and 'Smother' (16) will fit into 'BDSM' (317).
In this case 2-level category system would look as:
- CumShots
--- Bukkake
--- Cream Pies
- Anal
--- ATM
- BDSM
--- Trampling
--- Spanking
--- Smothering
|
11-19-07 01:14am
|
Reply
127
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
Movies on BitTorrent and other P2P networks? No thanks. I've got a feeling that most of movies there are pirated ones, and I've got another feeling that people making movies are entitled to get money for it.
About QT vs DivX/XVid - my experience with them was that QT is a stable product, which I cannot say about both XVid and DivX. QT original .MOV format is inferior to both WMV and MPEG-4, but as QT started to support MPEG-4 (including AVC) it became about the same quality/bandwidth-wise as WMV.
|
11-18-07 09:23am
|
Reply
128
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> A LOT of videos now-a-days are encoded using it and it is a really good file format.
Let's look at TBP: 6200+ sites provide WMV and only 566 DivX (plus 84 XVid whatever it means); and of those which provide DivX most provide WMV too (I took a random sample and 7 out of 10 sites with DivX also provided WMV), which leaves us with about 3% of sites with DivX and without WMV. Not that much IMHO.
As for format: DivX/XVid = MPEG-4, right? Then QuickTime7 (which I have anyway) is supposed to play it; I'm wondering if it really can do it; do you know link of any free clip in DivX/XVid so I can try it (or maybe if you have QuickTime you can try it yourself and tell)?
|
11-18-07 01:53am
|
Reply
129
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> is there really someone who havent got all codecs? :)
Me for instance. I hate installing all the garbage that comes with codecs, having to deal with adware/spyware, Windows slowing down to a crawl and/or starting to crash on regular basis. On my main laptop, I have ONLY WMP, QT and Flash plug-in, that's it; not even DivX/XVid. if the site has something different - usually it's tough luck for them, unless they have something REALLY special.
Interesting that this "REALLY special site with non-standard codecs only" didn't happen to me at least during last 2-3 years; I've noticed that usually sites that like things like XVid/DivX are Russian (or other 3rd-world) ones and there is usually nothing to see anyway :-).
|
11-17-07 03:30am
|
Reply
130
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow! Probably I should try to get such a 30" Apple beast; I used to think such things are in $5k+ range, but at $1800 (well, it will be more here) it is not prohibitively expensive.
And just curious - do you know how much that 3840x2400 thing cost?
|
11-17-07 03:22am
|
Reply
131
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow (honestly, I didn't even know such a beast exists)! But still 3500 pixel picture width should be beyond even your capabilities :-) (and when downscaling with browser, quality suffers, I'm sure you won't object :-) ). So I'm continuing to be curious - do you like anything above your 2560x1600 pixels?
|
11-15-07 03:27pm
|
Reply
132
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Getreal's Poll
Everything except for boring niche :-).
|
11-15-07 03:22pm
|
Reply
133
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
I see, thanks :-).
|
11-15-07 02:22am
|
Reply
134
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
I see, thanks for commentary. But it looks more of discussion on "why pictures are better than vids" rather than "why download all the vids you won't watch anyway" :-).
Also a question about resolution: I've seen comments like "this site is great, they have pics with resolution of 3500 px width" or something like this; as an image fun (you certainly sound so :-)), can you tell what are people doing with such big images? They won't fit on screen anyway (and scaling algorithms built-in browsers suck, so quality will suffer); maybe somebody prints them or...?
|
11-14-07 07:44am
|
Reply
135
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
It is your answer "less than 1/3rd", right? I easily understand that you're getting tired quickly of video, but why do you download that much knowing that you won't view it anyway? Is it because of sites not having reasonably good previews/picture sets to allow to make a good choice, or just because of "download all I can" paradigm, or maybe there is some other reason? Just curious.
|
11-13-07 08:50am
|
Reply
136
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
Not my cup of tea - for me seeing the same face all the time is boooooring.
|
11-11-07 10:35am
|
Reply
137
|
N/A
|
Reply of
IKnoPorn's Reply
> I don't know where the other users here get their time (and money) to join so many sites per month and download so much!
Come on, not much time needed to download, especially with download manager (I've tried one recently - it really pushes you to download lots of stuff just because you can :-(, even stuff you'll never watch).
On the other hand, I am wondering where people get time to WATCH everything they download (even with 1Mbit/sec clips it will take 22+ hours to watch 10GBytes of porn).
|
11-09-07 03:49pm
|
Reply
138
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
If there would be such an option, I'd mark 2 entries - "Funny" and "Slow, sensual and sexy".
"Wham-bam" is boooooring, and female insulting is not my cup of tea - I love females :-).
|
11-05-07 05:20am
|
Reply
139
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Your News
And BTW another suggestion: to put average rating of user reviews into his profile. Would help to see if the user generally puts only high ratings, or only low rating which would help to filter out some bias.
|
11-01-07 02:54pm
|
Reply
140
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Your News
I think comment type was a good thing.
|
11-01-07 02:43pm
|
Reply
141
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
> Like every porn star could have his or own game.
Maybe we should ask them for games at least for PCs? At least it looks more realistic :-).
|
11-01-07 02:03pm
|
Reply
142
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
> Perhaps I would play it if they made some X rated games.
Sorry to disappoint you, but chances look as good as chances for a cold day in hell. To sell video games for console developer needs to get approval of company which makes consoles, and I can't imagine Sony or MS or even Nintendo to endorse such a game, at least not until current perception of the adult industry in US changes radically. :-(.
|
11-01-07 01:34pm
|
Reply
143
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
Games? Yes
Game consoles? No
|
11-01-07 03:48am
|
Reply
144
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
PU, TBP, Rabbits, Inspector - that's are sites I use (in that order).
|
10-28-07 03:21pm
|
Reply
145
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Actually it's about feeling, but bitrate is IMO the next closest thing (provided that you're comparing files of the same type; old .MOV files can look horrible in rather high bitrates).
|
10-20-07 02:20pm
|
Reply
146
|
18 Inches Of Pain
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Oh, I see, thanks.
|
05-07-08 08:24am
|
Comment
147
|
18 Inches Of Pain
(0)
|
|
05-07-08 05:00am
Replies (2)
|
Review
148
|
3D Plaything
(0)
52.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
++ decent 3D virtual setup
+ 4 different action spots (but in the same room)
+ variety of dildos
+ skin/hair/breasts modifications for the girl |
| Cons: |
--- not much to do
--- the only action allowed (in addition to asking girl to take some position) is moving dildos (mouth, pussy or anal)
- single girl only (with toys)
-- it's THE SAME girl despite modifications (face is always the same :-( ).
- the only clothing is bikini
- removing bikini is one-step without animation
- need to keep subscription to play (not that I think somebody will need it) |
| Bottom Line: |
When I've played Digamour (see my review) by the same SomaVision company, one of my thoughts was "oh, it cannot possibly become any more boring", but my recent experience with 3DPlaything by the same company has proven I was wrong :-(.
The beginning of the game is fine - you can "build" your girl, selecting skin tone/breast size/hair and so on, so there are quite many variations you can build. But on the next step comes the disappointment: all you've got is a girl which you can ask to take different positions (and position change is NOT even animated), ask her to remove bikini (NOT animated too), and move dildo in and out of any of her three orifices (this IS animated). And that is all the "game" you get for 19.95/month! Ok, as usual in 3D, you can move your "camera" to look from different angle, and you can also move to one of 4 different spots in the same room, but the action is always the same - girl in some position and all you can do is to move dildo in and out of her, that's it.
Bottom line: while I can't say it's completely useless and rate it at 50, I honestly see that only VERY few people would want to pay this kind of money for this kind of entertainment. |
|
09-24-08 07:30am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
149
|
3D Plaything
(0)
|
|
09-24-08 07:05am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
150
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
dracken's Reply
I agree that this site is not really about 3D sex, it is all about interactivity; if interactivity is your cup of tea, then it might be worth a try.
> thank you for pointing it out and thank you for a great review.
You're welcome :-).
|
08-18-09 01:53am
|
