This is another reference page for linking purposes. It explains the FindVRporn.com Review Criteria. This is a continuation of the FindVRporn.com VR Porn Standards Project, which attempts to get a sort of conceptual foundation for VR porn reviewing. Another piece of this project is the FindVRporn Positioning Checklist.
Personally, I don’t believe in absolute judgments about anything. What floats my flotilla might sink your submarine.
So, I always emphasize that this is all one man’s opinion.
With that said, there is a method and set of standards that is used for these reviews.
These reviews are based upon three main factors:
1. The woman: Most hetero-male viewers want a VR actress whom they find pretty, passionate, horny, etc.
Generally, the man viewer wants a sense of sexual enthusiasm and authenticity.
Additionally, of critical importance is the performer’s VR instincts.
That’s to say, how well does the woman engage with the camera?
Does she give the viewer a psychological sense of connection?
Eye contact, of course, is crucial.
Dialogue is crucial.
But, intangible factors come into play.
Je ne sais quo is crucial. By that, I mean that there’s desirable qualities that can’t be expressed in language. For much more on this aspect, see The Authenticity Component.
This whole connecting with a virtual camera thing…
…isn’t easy to do. There’s a lot of moving parts. There’s a lot of possible things that can go wrong on both the human and technical side. What works well in VR is difficult to intuitively understand. In most cases it must be explained.
And, it’s also difficult to verbalize. But, when the female performer has good VR instincts: you know it! OH, you damn know it!
An example? Well, honestly…when I think VR porn instincts the women who come to mind are Mistress T, Penny Pax, and Kagney Linn Karter.
2. The scaling: do things look correct and proportional? Generally, the viewer wants a real-life feel. This relates to sense of spatial correctness: a slightly more abstract concept that combines everything into an optical Gestalt.
The summary of scaling/sense of spatial correctness is that the VR porn image is an illusion. And, the viewer wants the most convincing illusion possible. It’s that simple, really.
3. Positioning: of the women and cameras. Close-ups are much-desired. And, by much-desired, I mean…the feedback indicates that they’re MUCH DESIRED!
What most male viewers of heterosexual VR porn want is for the woman to stay really close to the camera: in the sweet spot zone. And, what’s really becoming mandatory, in my opinion, is the Instant Sweet Spot Open.
These days I’m particularly impressed by the realism of truncated footage. And, I encourage all studios to experiment with this.
Sexual position variety is also mandatory. Eye contact, as previously mentioned, is also considered critically important by most.
For much more specific detail about what positioning elements FindVRporn.com wants, see The FindVRporn Positioning Checklist.
And, of course, the movie’s narrative; acting and dramatic (or comedic) context; eroticism; and technical execution (color, lighting, sound, etc.) are included in the evaluation.
Anything necessary to reach a responsible and competent evaluative conclusion is discussed.
In many cases these days, the studios have the technical aspects sorted-out, so if there’s no problem with the color/lighting/sound, it may not get mentioned at all.
The three major factors here, though, are the performers, scale and positioning. Those three factors will always be the review’s backbone, but these writings have a tendency to travel down some tangents. I always have found digression and tangents to be natural and interesting.