little computer

FindVRporn Reviews Explained

James FindVR Porn Standards Leave a Comment

This is another reference page for linking purposes. It explains the Review Criteria. This is a continuation of the VR Porn Standards Project, which attempts to get a sort of conceptual foundation for VR porn reviewing. By “conceptual foundation,” I mean that, in my opinion, there are certain standards and principals that can be applied to every VR porn scene released.

For instance, regardless of the desired content, the viewer wants the scale and optical experience to be first-rate. Right? Yes, in almost all cases. Likewise, what consumer prefers lousy audio to an excellent audio experience? Is there anyone who prefers a pixelated image? So, reviewing gets tricky. Because, although there are some constants, there are so many things that are purely subjective. I present my honest opinions based upon many factors, which I explain in tremendous detail. Here is the findvrporn affiliate policy.

So, below on this page I want to concisely explain how I go about doing reviews. For the long version, see the link above.

I’m careful with absolute judgments

Personally, I resist absolute judgments. As discussed above, though, I do think some VR porn generalizations can be made. But, even with that said, I’m naturally weary about absolute judgments. What floats my flotilla might sink your submarine. So, I always emphasize that this is all one man’s opinion. Consumers want different things. There’s just no way around that ever.

With that said, there is a method and set of standards that is used for these reviews. Now, to be fair, there are dozens of factors considered when I write these reviews. You can take a deep-dive if you have a considerable amount of free time. I call it the Standards Project. It addresses various issues and debates that arise when evaluating VR porn scenes. Things like: Should a man’s hands be visible in the scene? That alone is a controversial one. And, I address such issues over there.

In a much more general sense, for the sake of a constructive conversation, I believe a competent VR porn review can be achieved by considering three primary factors, which I’ll explain below.

VR Porn Reviewing Method:

Three main factors

These reviews are based upon three main factors:

The performer

1. The performer: So, this site is going to unavoidably cover more content created for heterosexual  male viewers. I believe that the marketplace is huge and that everybody—with all types of erotic desires—should have some porn that makes them happy. But, I am a heterosexual male, and there’s just no way that I can’t have an expertise towards the content that I naturally find erotic. Now, with that said….

…Most hetero-male viewers want a VR actress whom they find pretty, passionate, horny, and engaging in the 3D medium. 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. An erotic je ne sais quo is crucial and often separates a good scene from a fantastic one. By that, I mean that there’s desirable qualities that aren’t easily expressed in language. For much more on this aspect, see The Authenticity Component.

Mistress T handjob

One of my favorite virtual porn performers is Mistress T.

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 can be 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. That’s not an exhaustive list! There are many others. Those are just the three that made a strong impression when I was first getting started in reviewing.

Another really fine example of an actress who embodies the VR instincts and VR je ne sais quo is Cecelia Taylor in The Most Fuckable Dad Award. Now, as I said, there are a lot of examples that I could cite. Too many to list in totality. But, I wanted to give at least a few so you can perhaps see what I’m trying to convey.

The scale/ General optical experience

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. I should really consider changing the heading of this from scale to perhaps General Optical Experience.

In the early days, the scale was quite often off. And, the video players weren’t as sophisticated as today. So, correct scale was really a major factor. I think I am going to sort of change the heading right now to update it for the present moment.


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 wants, see The FindVRporn Positioning Checklist. I want to see things like squatting cowgirl hoverface, truncated missionary, etc.

I consider those to be the three primary factors. But, of course, there’s a lot more to consider.

Many other factors

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.

So, get over to the review blog and start reading.


Leave a Reply