ALS Scan (2)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
* Good quality photography
* Most girls are attractive and display a good attitude
* Good connection speed
* Navigation will mostly be familiar to users of other sites on Met-Art's network. |
| Cons: |
* Streaming videos seem buggy if you want to do anything other than watch them from beginning to end without pauses or skips.
* Lots of strange insertions and weird borderline-BDSM pussy play (may be a pro to some)
* Very little, and mostly mediocre, boy/girl content
* Some videos are basically just the photo sets with a camcorder running (can hear posing instructions etc)
* Navigation options are very lacking and search often turns up irrelevant results. Has a tag system but searches seem to mostly ignore it.
* Model names aren't consistent with other sites, even other sites on the same network. |
| Bottom Line: |
This is a site whose name I've been seeing for a LONG time. If it's not older than some of the girls in its newest sets, I'm pretty sure it's close - I'm fairly sure it debuted in the 90s, though it only specifically shows shoots back to 2005 at the moment, with selected older content relegated to an undated "archives" section.
I've liked a lot of the bits of content I've seen from them over the years, but never felt compelled to join until now. It seems to have recently been taken over by Met-Art. Like many other sites in their orbit of late, they're marketing it pretty aggressively, with a good discount available through PornUsers and an even better one having recently been e-mailed to current and former members of other sites in this network. On the basis of this, I signed up. Unfortunately I have just canceled after only four days (as always, the membership will still run for a total of a month, it just won't renew).
Partly this is because I mostly want boy/girl content and ALS has only recently started (or resumed - I could have sworn they had some in their early days?) shooting such content. I'd say well under a quarter of their recent updates (which occur once a day) have featured straight sex, and this content only dates back a few months.
However, it's hard to say for sure because there is no option to zero in on a particular type of content, other than a search box that seems to mostly pay attention to the (rather arbitrary) set titles. You'll look in vain for a list of categories on which you can click "boy/girl" and get a list of all the b/g content. Search for "boy/girl" and you'll get every set with "girl" in the title, which as you can imagine, is a LOT of them. This needs a rethink.
Once you've found what you're looking for, it's usually... good but not great. Nearly everything about this site is good but not great, actually (except the navigation which is downright bad). The looks of the models are good but not great, the creativity of the sets and shot choices is good but not great, technical aspects like connection speed are good but not great. Unfortunately with the number of sites competing for my dollar, "good but not great" isn't going to cut it. I certainly don't regret signing up, especially at the price they were offering as of a few days ago, but I don't see anything that compels me to renew.
As with network-mate Sexart (for which I would now want to revise my glowing review downwards a little), it seems to promise something amazing and groundbreaking but deliver something that's merely above-average.
Overall, I can honestly say this is a site I'd recommend, but only weakly so. It's definitely worth it at the very low prices on offer in various places lately. You might like it better than I did if you prefer solo or girl-girl action or if you're into things like a cute girl clipping a dream-catcher to her labia. (That kind of weird borderline-BDSM stuff is only in a minority of their sets, but it's conspicuous by the mere fact that it's there at all.) I can't say that's my thing; while I appreciate a more creative approach to porn, that isn't the direction in which I'd prefer to look for it. |
Reply To Review |
