Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 516 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.9.10 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.11.5, updated 2026-10-01.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.9.10, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 1.11.5 · 2026-10-01
No release notes were provided for this version.
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.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Honestly, I was having a lot of fun playing this game. It plays exactly like their ads. I was having fun for a while, watching some optional ads, and even made a purchase. Until after a bit they started giving me forced ads. After the…
My initial experience was great and the voluntary ads seemed reasonable. Then after a few hours I started to get forced ads after every run, followed by a prompt asking me to spend £6 to get rid of them. This is completely scummy. I was…
so really thought this was going to be a great game. the ads are annoying but the £5.99 removal cost for forced ads seemed more than reasonable. SUPER glad I never made the purchase as soon as you pass void portal. energy system comes in…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Was actually really good, and well balanced ads, then all of a sudden its ads after every single game. I also don't like the mechanics of your character running out of energy and therefore stopping you playing. If there was a one off…
fun but limiting, it is just like the ads, no town building just run and level up.. but the ads are ridiculous.. after every single run you have to close their ads. waiting on an energy refill? oh I'll buy a pack so I can play? this isn't…
It has some fun elements in the beginning to lure you in, after that it makes the game very difficult to play without spending money. You have to wait an hour for stamina to replenish for 1 more run. A run takes about 2 minutes, so you…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
the ad i played is COMPLETELY different from the actual game. Actual gameplay is boring and uninteresting, would not recommend
looks nothing like the ads and has 20 year old graphics
Nothing like the ads or pictures. I just want the game in the ads.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.