Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 977 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.051.013 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.051.013, updated 2026-09-26.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.051.013 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.051.013, updated 2026-09-24.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Pay to progress
Don't waste your time. the game's entire design is absolutely laser focused on making you spend money. I was paid to play, and not even that made it worth the absolute barrage of desperate money-sucking popups. This isn't even pay to win…
This game is entirely pay to win. they have at minimum 2 events a week for half a week. all of it is in competion with other. And for a "small" fee, often needs you to pay 5$ per event to score high in the ranking. Then the next half the…
This game is like any other pay to win...gets boring rather quickly and the older players on the little competition s will always win no matter how much money or time you put into it...I get you need to make money but this right here will…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Seems like it's a newer game but I'm absolutely obsessed. There is a lot to do and collect so you never run out of gameplay and can play whenever you want. Instead of waiting for life and energy to recharge every 10 hours. Highly…
Fun if you enjoy corporate greed — This game was fun at the start, but it has turned into a chore. If you start today, your server will be dead in 6 months and you’ll be playing with the same 30 people (if that). If you prefer a livelier…
A Microtransaction Platform First, and a “Game” Second — At first glance this games looks so confusing, I took one look at it and decided not to bother, cause I had no idea what or how any of it worked. The second time I came across it I…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
I found this game through Mistplay and saw the ads with the little vampire girl that you find and take in. I expected something completely different. 2 stars for the design. Lost 3 stars for false advertising, lack of character…
not at all as advertised and no explanation as you start off and once you make your first choice its locked in. delete the app and reinstalled it. progress was saved. completely false advertisement
not what's advertised.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.