MetArt (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- It's probably the greatest picture porn site on the internet. I consider it slightly intimidating to review.
- Very pretty models.
- To my knowledge, the technical quality (picture resolution) is unmatched.
- The photo sets can be downloaded in zips.
- Advertises 4-6 updates per day. It's been 4 per day during my current membership.
- Good download speeds that seem to choke up and slow down on some sets.
- Considering the size of the site and the overwhelming amount of content, their navigation is very good and often surprises me with how good it is.
- The scenes themselves have become more "adult" or I should say "nude". You rarely see a set now without full nudity.
- Strong network of sites also can be purchased with Met Art.
- The locations of the shoots are often as pretty as the model. |
| Cons: |
- The videos are a complete waste for me. They're usually in the 10 minute range and are usually just of the model rolling around on a bed naked, walking around naked or posing.
- I'm assuming a new porn fan is reading this and needs to know, there's no intercourse, no blowjobs, no double anal penetration to be found anywhere on the site. It's a site about pretty girls being pretty and naked. And yes, I think for many, that's a major con.
- I really wish they would get rid of those cam ads. It takes up roughly 1/3 the page.
- Site itself can be a bit wonky. I've had it close for no reason, refuse to remember my login, store my old login so I login to an account from 2011 and I still think they try too hard to get you to buy an upsell. |
| Bottom Line: |
There's few sites that I consider intimidating to review, Met-Art, might be at the top of the list. First, there's so much content there's no way you're going to see all of it in a month or even a year. Second, even though it doesn't show as much with me as it does with other PU members, I really like pictures. Third, if I was to complain about something that bothers me it's the way the site presents its content and shoots/produces its content.
The reason the photo one bothers me is if I just reviewed it from just what I think about the site, it's going to get a very high score. But ... I don't think their pictures are the best. I prefer FTVs pictures and some of ALS Scan's too. Complaining about how the site produces or presents its content is just a subjective opinion. In a few words, it's a little more artsy than I like.
Then there's the big one. The videos still aren't worth downloading. I think that should be the biggest question you ask yourself before joining Met-Art. If you're strictly a video person, you're going to be disappointed and wondering why everyone scores this site so high. I think for me, it's that I always loved the old porn magazines, but not the tame ones like Playboy. Penthouse was a borderline one for me. I liked Hustler, Gallery, and a few other more obscure ones that showed full-nudity and penetration of fingers. Met-Art does a very good job of recreating those classic magazines in their photo sets. If you think you would enjoy that, then this is a definite join site.
Technically, the newest photo sets are nearing 6000 long end, there might even be some that go over 6000, but I've not seen them. Still, 6000 long end, is big enough to count the fuzz hairs on a model's butt. This is where one of my only complaints about the pictures comes into play. Some of the photos are blurry when viewed in the largest size. I don't get that near as much with FTV or ALS Scan.
Their presentation and style of content can be described this way and it's not about every single set, it's more of an "in general" than blanket statement. It's like when you're younger and see this beautiful girl who smiles at you. You are so excited to go out with her then you go out with her and there's no chemistry, her personality is flat, dull. I normally wouldn't make a comparison like that, but Met-Art is the one site I've always had a slight problem with because of its presentation. For all of their uniqueness, being a photo-heavy site, trying not to be vulgar, it's like the sets become interchangeable. I'm not even for sure this word really fits here, but I would call their content "linear". And I think you have to accept that before you can really enjoy their content. Their photographers, in my opinion, take their work, direction, flow of their photo sets, very seriously. For a long time, I avoided Met-Art because I found the content too similar from set to set.
Now though, I join it once per year and download any of the new sets/girls I like. It took a long time to sort my collection from Met-Art and get it to the point, where I only needed the content from one year. It makes the membership more enjoyable and less frustrating.
The models are generally very pretty, slim, a few have bigger builds, but most are slim. Most of the models are white, which is a bit of a problem for me, not so much from a PC view, but just because I like the different physical features each race has.
They have improved one thing I have complained about before. A lot of the artsy photo sites like to start each set with the model fully nude. Met-Art was very bad about doing this. Now, you'll see quite a few of the newer sets starting with models fully clothed. I've always believed my problem with models starting fully nude was based around my own fantasies of seeing what she looks like with her clothes on then comparing how she looks nude. But I now think it was more to do with their older sets starting fully nude, but not showing pink or buttholes. It would be 120 photos of trying to hide those things. They've improved that, I think it's brought more personality out from the models than the old style allowed.
I really can't convince myself to raise the score any even with the change to more sets starting clothed. I've now been a member on Sex-Art, which Met-Art owns and I prefer it. I also prefer ALS Scan, which Met-Art is partnered with. Other than that, I would think for someone who prefers pictures and hasn't been on many other photo sites, this Met-Art site could easily represent your "100" site. I feel like I'm defending my stance of only giving it an 88, but it shouldn't stop anyone from trying it out, unless you prefer videos by a large margin. I consider myself about 50/50 on photos and videos. If you prefer pictures, add 8-10 points to my score. If you prefer videos, subtract 8-10 points from my score. As an ending compliment, Met-Art is one of the few sites I wouldn't be surprised to see rated a 100. |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
