Wet And Puffy (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Joining any site in the small network gives you access to 5 sites.
The 5 sites are listed in the Bottom Line section of this review.
-Navigation is basically simple.
-There is a text file that describes the action of the video very well.
-Also, plenty of tags to describe the action of the video. So search is easy and can be very detailed, if you want it to.
-Newer videos have a definition of 320p through 4K. The 4K video file size is around 3.35 GB for a 23 minute runtime video, so the coding seems efficient.
-The content is exclusive.
-Unlimited streaming and downloading. |
| Cons: |
-The level of attractiveness of the models is poor. Other PU members have written that they find the models to be attractive. I disagree completely. I respect the opinion of these PU members, but find it hard to agree with their opinion.
-I find the quality of the videos and photo sets to be poor. The images are not crystal clear, but either slightly unfocused or with a slight haze to the image. But since the models are not attractive to begin with, I wouldn't mind watching the video with the images in complete darkness, so I wouldn't have to view the models at all. (That is a joke, but also has an element of truth. These models are far below the attractive level of the Teen Mega World models, and comparing the models at Wet and Puffy to the models at the Wow sites is like comparing night and day: the Wow site models are fucking georgeous; the Wet and Puffy models are unappetizing.
-The online mechanism for viewing photo sets is clunky. Slow to load images.
-Pre-checked cross-sale. |
| Bottom Line: |
The 5 sites of this network include:
Wet and Puffy
We Like To Suck
Wet and Pissy
Simply Anal
Eurobabe Facials
There is also a live cam show at the network.
Membership in any one site gives you access to all 5 sites.
The stats for Wet and Puffy network:
Over 27000 photos. and
Over 480 models.
They advertise that the photos are the best ultra high definition picture sets.
They advertise that the tags, filters and layout of each page makes browsing simple.
The thumbnails that illustrate the models have washed out colors.
Even models that appear young and attractive at competing sites look plain and unattractive at this site, in the photo sets and videos.
You examine a photo in a photo set, and it appears as if the photo was taken with a filter that makes the model appear slightly out of focus.
Each photo set has 2 definition zip files, low and high.
The low definition is 666 x 1000 pixels.
The high definition is 2267 x 3400 pixels.
In the photos, the models are uniformly unattractive. They are plain-looking women. You go to a local mall, you find plenty of good-looking teens or twenty-year-olds. The models at this site are mainly in their twenties or thirties, and they are far less attractive than the normal twenty-thirty-year-old you find at your local mall. One reason is the photos have washed-out colors, so the skin tones of the models are not pleasing. A second reason is the models themselves are below-average in level of physical looks. Plus many of the models have lots of tattoos, which I'm not a fan of.
Even though the site advertises "best ultra high definition picture sets", I look at sets and feel the quality is far below the quality of any photo site, in any technical feature you can think of: these photo sets are shit. Teen Mega World, which is a hardcore teen site, has photo sets that are far superior in technical quality to the photo sets at Wet and Puffy. The the quality of the teen models at Teen Mega World is far superior in attractiveness to the Wet and Puffy models.
The Wet and Puffy models are mainly plain to unattractive. The photos are not worth collecting. They aren't even worth viewing.
Note: some of the live cam girls are really attractive.
Note: my opinion seems to be in the minority.
There are some attractive models at this site, but they are not presented attractively at the site. Delphine and Nika O, two girls who normally look very attractive at other sites, look washed out (in color and skin tones) and blah at this site. How a girl is photographed can make a huge difference in her appearance. Besides which, most of the models at this site are not that attractive to begin with.
Maybe I should have my eyes checked. I look for attractive girls at this site and can't find any. Some of the girls are attractive at other sites, but not at this site. I know that beauty is supposed to be in the eye of the beholder. The average female at any local mall, or even your local grocery store or Walmart, is far more attractive than the models at Wet and Puffy.
Maybe my problem is expectations: I assume that most models are chosen for their looks. But at this site, I think they were chosen for performing hardcore sex. Without bothering to filter for attractiveness.
The photo play mechanism for viewing photos online is clunky. Images are slow to load. The images themselves are poor in color, poor in clarity. You aren't viewing sharply defined images of the model.
The composition of the photo is poor. The sets are inexpensive or cheap and lacking in any imagination.
Overall, the photo sets are a waste of storage space, and not worth viewing.
I was a member of this site before, and wrote a review that highlighted how poor the site was, in terms of the attractiveness of the models, the poor quality of the photo sets. But my memory is poor, and I forgot how unappealing the site was. Which is the reason I rejoined. I was stupid.
Other PU members seem to appreciate the site much more than I do. They cite the attractive models at the site, the ease of navigation, the low membership price. I agree the membership price can be low: PU has the first month's membership for $15, or $60 for a year.
I agree that navigation is simple and effective, that Vendo and Epoch are fine billers.
But I can't agree the models are attractive.
Poor models, poor photography. And that kills the site for me. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
