Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Teen Mega World

Teen Mega World (3)

Active
80
TheSquirrel (53) 05-06-11  02:43pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (52), NO (0)
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: No DRM, no download restrictions, and no pre ticked cross selling dirty tricks.
Established company using Epoch as agent.
No regional discrimination.
A number of sites with a wealth of material and many pretty girls.
Not many tats and fake breasts.
$10 discount through TBP/PU.
Good quality high spec videos with the newer updating sites.
Updates are dated.
Model index.
Reasonable easy sign in. Once you have signed in you can go to any site on the network without going through the process again.
Pics are zipped.
Videos can be downloaded complete or in shorter segments.
The HD quality of the newer videos along with the unglamorous way they are shot, gives a real sense of two people having sex.
Cons: Awful, truly dreadful, uninspiring home pages, which all look the same. making it very hard to choose clips.
Surprisingly poor selection of pictures. Some look like video caps. Those that aren't video caps, or aren't badly lit, I find to be unerotic. Personally I think they do not make the most of the model.
Too many skinny girls. Teen does not have to mean anorexic.
Navigation is difficult because everything looks the same.
Some sites don't update at all, and the quality is quite poor on these. Private Teen Video and Home Teen Vids for example. Here you get too many close ups, or angles from a distance where you cannot see anything, and terrible dark lighting.
Too many condoms - mainly on the older sites.
The lighting and camerawork is better on the updating sites but the samey uninspired photography and camerawork makes everything, especially the models, look the same.
Little in the way of stripping, showing off the model's body, or build up of plot.
Bottom Line: It is just a personal thing, but I found this to be the most disappointing network I have visited. The girls are mostly of two types - white blonde and skinny, or white brunette and skinny, with little ethnic diversity. They all look very much alike. The way the videos and pics are shot exacerbates this impression. For some members, the thin girls will be an absolute plus, so I admit this is all about personal taste. I wish I had seen the Exotics4me review before I joined. It is very accurate imo. Add 10 points to the score if you like thin young models but subtract 15 if you don't.
Overall I found the network to be disappointing for photos, They often look like screen caps, and even those that don't do not, imo, capture the full beauty of the model. The one notable exception to this is the sadly defunct Nubiles HD where they have very good high definition photos. I found dimensions of 2048x1360 and 3168x4752 here, were mainly well lit, and made the models look good.

Some sites mostly do high. medium. and low quality videos in wmv, but the specs vary from site to site. High is generally 1280x720, medium is 860x480 and low is 480x270. However sometimes high quality is only 720x576. Some sites do high quality in wmv, medium in FLV and low in MP4 for portable devices, Fuck Studies in addition offers Ipod/Iphone Format and Mobile Format. Photo specs vary. 960x1440, 1024x768, 1280x853, 2048x1360, up to 3168x4752 on Nubiles HD, but once again the quality on the older defunct sites is not so good with specs down to 720x576.

You can download short two minute clips or whole videos. Streaming is available which I found to be good quality and customer friendly.
I think they try to give an impression of individual sites with different content on sites like Tricky Masseur and Beauty Angels, but for me, it is all very much of a muchness. Certainly the newer sites have much better video and picture quality, as well as content. The defunct ones are poor quality by today's standards. Poor in terms of both video and picture spec, poor lighting and poor camera angles. They are also a turn off for me, as they use condoms a lot.

Sites not updating - AT Movs, 18 First Sex, Lolly Hardcore, Teen Stars Only, Home Teen Vids, Solo Teen Girls, Gag-N-Gape, Old-N-Young, Teens 3 Some, They Didn't Know, About Girls Love, Drunken Teen Orgies, Boys Love 18, Coeds Reality, Nubile Girls HD, El Porno Latino.

I have tried to be as objective as possible. Obviously this network was not to my taste. I found the samey homogeneous nature of the videos and pics to be uninspiring and seemingly produced by a company that is using a painting by numbers approach. Despite this, if you are into slim young girls TMW will certainly be of interest, and I recommend you check it out. Despite the relative shortage of quality pictures, the video quality on the updating sites makes this a must see for those into a certain type of model, because there is plenty to see and download.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (11)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

lk2fireone (194) Excellent review.
Skinny white girl is the gold standard for teen porn models. Very few US or European sites deviate from this.
There is a large number of very attractive girls at this network. But the videos (and the poor photos) do little to show off the girls to their best advantage.

05-06-11  06:54pm

Reply To Message

2

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #1 - lk2fireone :

Thanks Ik, looks like we agree. Much as I dislike the TeenCoreClub network, and the contempt they have for customers, they do a better job of showing off the models.

Whatever happened to puppy fat? When I was a kid, teen girls had puppy fat.

05-06-11  07:02pm

Reply To Message

3

slutty (111) REPLY TO #2 - TheSquirrel :

Good review man, luckily for me I like them with a little less baby fat. I very much agree with your points though.

Hadn't downloaded any pictures from there the last time I was a member, a shame to hear they are just scree caps.

05-06-11  09:34pm

Reply To Message

4

graymane (31) I gotta say, squirrel, although I don't get around to checking out many reviews, this is about the best one I've had the pleasure of reading. If you missed any essentials at all, then it never was there in the first place.
All you left out, Pal, was the kitchen sink.
Congratulations.

05-06-11  11:58pm

Reply To Message

5

Stas RC (50)
Webmaster
Thanks for your review!
05-07-11  02:37am

Reply To Message

6

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #5 - Stas RC :

Thanks Stas. My main concern was not to put people off the network because those who love slim young models will love the site. I'm a mean miserable bastard, and though my mark was lowish compared to some other members it wasn't that low compared to others I have done. It's just personal taste, and for some this is a must see, at least once.
05-07-11  06:01am

Reply To Message

7

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #4 - graymane :

Thanks graymane. always good to get some positive feedback. Like you, I don't do many reviews.
05-07-11  06:04am

Reply To Message

8

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #3 - slutty :

Thanks slutty, I don't think they're all screen caps but I think most are. It's a big surprise because given the excellent HD quality of the vids you would think they would pay more attention to the pics.
05-07-11  06:07am

Reply To Message

9

Micha (1) Yes a very good review, but 80 seems high to me
I personally love the thin young things but they were not enough to pull this one out of the fire. These are the slowest porn sites I have ever visited.Download speed does not exceed 178 Kbps
(I have a 2Mbps cable modem) Navigation is an experating experience.The whole network is juat klunky.
Do not consider these sites unless you have a DL manager. Fifty to one hundred download resumptions were not uncommon to DL a 25 minute vid. Without the manager they would all have aborted.
I am new to using a DL manager, so some of the problems may be with the user. The most common responses on these sites :
Error.....Server Busy...waiting to retry and Waiting for reply
Almost every page that loads has a notation that there is an error on the page. Images are missing everywhere. They may load tomorrow, or next week, but not now.
I will say that about 25 vids and photosets were of the best I've ever seen but most the remaining 3000 were of abysmal quality. Tricky Masseur,Fuck Studies, Nubile Girls and Beauty Angels had some decent content, less so for TeenSexMania and TeenStarsOnly.
The rest of the network is really not worth a look. Believe me, I've looked,
Anal fans may enjoy this site more than me. Rabid anal fans seem to make up the bulk of the vocal members and their comments. They seem to be of the “it ain’t good anal if it don’t hurt” school of thought. Not for me thanks.
AmateurTeenMover refer not to the models so much as the cameramen. TeenSexMovs is the porn equivalent of a recycling bin. Five to six hundred vids, mostly crap

06-19-11  08:20pm

Reply To Message

10

TheSquirrel (53) REPLY TO #9 - Micha :

Thanks for the comments Micha. Ouch! I thought I was being mean with my mark, as it's the second lowest of all the active reviews. Most give middle eighties to middle nineties. I didn't have the download troubles that you had, but slow speeds do make membership a pain. Slowest site I've experienced is VideoBox.

I agree with some of your comments concerning the lesser sites on the network, but there's a lot of good and great material to be had if you like their style. It's not particularly to my taste, but others love it. I agree with your views on navigation and search. It became such a pain I gave up and almost certainly missed a lot of good material.

There's quite a large cross section of opinion on this one. I suppose the bottom line for a potential customer is, do you consider the idiosyncratic style of the material to your taste and therefore make it worth putting up with the faults? Thing is, if this network could improve their camerawork up to their best standard, equal that standard with photo sets, and improve navigation, they could be an amazing network - given the scores some award, a number of members already think they are.

06-20-11  07:55am

Reply To Message

11

hoppytoad (0) Excellent review, but I reckon 80 is way too high - this is a very disappointing site, wasting a lot of good looking models with poor-quality pictures and videos that have no chemistry at all. The camera's chat up lines on some of the solo/POV videos are particularly hopeless. Money down the drain for this user.
08-15-13  08:41am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.02 seconds.