First Anal Quest (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
There are no DRM, download limits, regional discrimination, pre checked cross sells, or dirty tricks.
Beautiful girls.
Some very orginal and erotic poses.
Good lighting and overall sense of professionalism.
Good quality videos.
Zipped photos.
Easy log in.
Still updating. |
| Cons: |
Same style and angles every time resulting in a mass produced look.
The picture sets contain too many of the same pose and have little continuity.
Very little ethnic, age, or shape diversity. Models are mainly thin, white, and young.
Few picture or download options. Top quality video is now mp4, not wmv. You have to drop lower in quality to obtain wmv.
Navigation not the best.
No teasing or build up in the pics or videos.
Occasionally annoying male leads.
Although you get some bonus sites, it is a relatively small network. |
| Bottom Line: |
Video Downloads - Best Quality 1280x720 at 4000kbps (4838), High Quality 800x452 at 2500 kbps, Normal Quality 580x328 at 1000 kbps. Recently, for some reason, they changed their "Best Quality" downloads from wmv to mp4. The 4000 kbps wmv is now unavailable, and has been changed to 4500 kbps mp4, so if you want wmv, you have to download a lower quality video.
Pics 1024x682, 1280x853.
You get four bonus sites, although only FAQ's sister site, Double View Casting, is top class. The other three are Fuck n Drive, Jizz On Teens, and Wanted GFS.
Pics, and sometimes videos, are ridiculously frustrating because although they choose some original and erotic angles to shoot from, they continually miss out the lower legs and feet, and concentrate far too much on the groin, ass, and upper thigh, turning the models into amputees. I have seen criticism elsewhere on PU, concerning the gynaecological focus of their shoots. A great shame because the models are fantastic, and they think up some original angles to shoot from, then they undermine this eroticism by turning the models into amputees 80 per cent of the time. It is particularly annoying in the pics, where it would appear, feet do not exist.
Although they have great and original angles and ways of shooting models, that mould is set, and they rarely stray from doing exactly the same thing on each shoot, making everything look mass produced.
The pics are adequate but a lot of the time there is little continuity or thought put into the sets. You see a girl starting with clothes, but you don't see much of the strip or lead up to sex. It is like watching six frames from a video, forward winding for four minutes, then watching another six frames, then forward winding, and so on. There are four to eight almost identical pictures of a model in one pose, then four to eight in another pose, with little idea of continuity or progression in the shoot.
Sometimes the male leads can be very irritating. Whether this is by direction or not I don't know. Some continually slap the asses of the models, grunt, groan, and paw their female co workers like they were terrorists abusing their hostages. That can be unerotic for some of us.
Okay, let's be honest, let's come out of the closet. Female genitalia just by itself isn't all that attractive, neither is chopped liver, or any type of roadkill. It is what leads up to that genitalia that is attractive. The whole package, the eyes, the face, the breasts, the legs, the everything. It's the genitalia in context, along with the whole package. I so wish some of these sites would realise that. We've got past the shock of penetration about 40 years ago in Europe, 30 years ago in America, amd 10 years ago in Britain. So we don't need closeups of two thrusting groins and nothing else. We know they're having sex, we get to see it all the time.
I know sites have to keep production costs as cheap as possible, but surely it's possible to see two whole people having sex, and give us some idea of the beauty of the whole girl. It's done professionally, but with little love for the subject. This is true of 99% of porn, both today and in the past so I can't complain too much.
Their visitors preview site probably gives a better preview of what's on offer than the members' home page as there you get a better idea of how the girls look, and what the sets are like.
It may just me being stupid again but once I got into browsing a picture set, I couldn't get back to home again without going through my favourites option.
There is a model search option from the home page (in very small print), but when you access the model using this, the video and picture download options are dead links. You therefore have to look at the date, then go back to the home pages and work out where the model is on the chronologically listed update pages in order to download pics and videos.
It seems there is a six simultaneous downloads limit.
Logging in is easy, and you can return to the site without re entering your password.
The lighting, production and photography are mainly very good. If you go back to the first few girls recorded in 2009 you can see how much this has improved. The early ones look very different, with a different style, angles, and lighting.
You would think by the title of "First Anal Quest" its close relative "Double View Casting," and the comments "real teenagers craving to get their cherries popped," and "no fake scenes no bullshit," these are mostly first timers, but not a bit of it. Some of these girls (for example Britney, Stonell, and Kristina) have been around for a long long time, and have appeared on many other sites featuring Eastern European Girls. Some of these girls have pussies more pounded than when a juggernaut lorry crashed into the local Pets At Home.
All in all it is worth a visit, but very few seasoned downloaders will find any need to stay more than a month, or maybe two. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
