Net Video Girls (0)
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
||+One of the original "reality" sites. NVG acts as a "fake" Calendar photo shoot.
+Very early vids for some notable girls (Eva Angelina, Sarah Blake, etc.)
+Newer updates (2008 and on) have a flash stream of the vid on the girl's page
+Updates categorized by year (each year has its own page. makes it easy to determine shitty update schedule)
+Every update has a PROPER headshot. For a site that offers no preview streaming and no screecaps, this is a major plus. Too many times I see sites without previewing options that offer their listing thumbnail as a non-headshot making it hard to determine the girl in the video.
+Rejections page is fun - shows the girls who somehow failed. However they are more staged than the real videos (and probably never been updated)
+There are BTS vids, but again, they are rather outdated and poor quality.
+Unlike other sites (both RealityKings and NaughtyAmerica), NVG has not deleted a single file on their server because of "old age" or "poor quality".
||-Limited number of updates PER YEAR (anywhere from 15 to 60 updates)
-Earlier updates (2007 and earlier) have no preview trailer
-In the 8 years they have been doing this, video quality is still as shitty as ever. Yes, there have been improvements over the years (vids originally were previously only available as MPG, and only split-scene), but vids continue to be 320x240 with no high def option.
-Poor girl naming (Luna Lane=Annie, Faith Leon=Faye, Isabella Soprano=Melody, Chelsea Romero=Alexis etc.)
-No site search
-Site hasn't changed in 8 years, still Web1.0 HTML style
-Homepage sucks. Just a short list of updates (text form) with some text about security and shutting down accounts.
-Updates not tagged with dates. Once the update is off the homepage (which lists last 5 updates with dates) the date is gone.
-No bonus material
-Expensive, and no trial
||NetVideoGirls is a relic of the way porn pay sites used to be done. HTML design, MPG and Real Media offerings in both DSL and 56k qualities in split file, and no streaming capabilities. They were one of the first websites I know of to do reality-based pornography, with this site acting as a front for a photoshoot calendar (not a bad idea, but has been surpassed by the idea of driving around in a bus picking up innocent girls on the street). You would figure with reality porn taking off that they would update their site to compete and rake in the cash. Not the case. Their website has not changed in any major way since their inception (sure they added some minor things like WMV downloads, full-scene downloads, abolishing of real media on newer updates, etc., but again nothing major), they continue to spit out updates in low quality 320x240 resolution, there are no HQ image sets, production quality is still terrible as ever, and on and on and on.
Asking $30/mo is a lot, especially for a site that does not update as often as we have become accustomed to (thanks to sites like VideoBox and VideosZ) and that offers updates that are very poorly encoded. Again, like other junky sites reviewed, my list of Pros are short on meaningful items and long on minor things which don't count towards a very high rating, and unlike junky sites which know they are junky, NetVideoGirls offers 0 bonus material (usually a site which knows it is junky offers a lot of bonus content to make up for the junkiness).
The only redeeming thing about NetVideoGirls is that they offer videos from some better known pornstars from their earlier days (Luna Lane, Sarah Blake, Eva Angelina, Chelsea Romero, Isabella Soprano, etc.), the only problem is that the names of the girls are all wrong (or lacking a full name, Eva Angelina is named just Eva), so you will be relegated to browsing by looking at the headshots which will make it more difficult than it should be.
Rating is 61 because those very old videos of some favorite girls are a lot more arousing (because of their amateurish nature) than newer vids with these girls in the business today.
Reply To Review