Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 734 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 11.4.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.4.1, updated 2026-09-23.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 11.4.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.4.1, updated 2026-09-21.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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
There must be better Vampire Survivors clones than this. Even if you buy the thing that makes the ads go away all that does is remove the optional ads, the forced ads will remain. The players want less ads, so the devs gave us more ads…
all the good reviews are paid. its not a game its an advertisement generator. starting at level 1 with nothing every single stage is zero fun and gives zero feeling of advancement and zero desire to continue. oh but you can watch a 5…
The game conceptually is very fun, cute art style and lots of things to do. But it is SO disgustingly predatory with its monetization. Unless you get insane RNG, which i thankfully have twice now it is IMPOSSIBLE to get new characters…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
False Advertisement! — I’ve played this game before but when recently getting an Ad for it, when looking at the download page it showed false gameplay images. An easy manual search in the App Store (word for word) showed what the game…
Nothing like the adverts — So yeah, don’t download. It’s nothing like the ads
Ok but really — The ads hype the game up, it’s a horde game with extremely low graphics and is NOTHING like the ads. It’s so far away from the horde game the ads show it’s not even funny. If you don’t mind a low quality game that lied to…
Pay to progress
game is decent but it's extremely expensive. This is a pay to win game. All wheel prizes are rigged to never give you anything good unless you pay to spin. All wheels are not random and are predetermined. Uninstalled.
great gameplay however like a bunch of other reviews they show that you can't really progress and get other characters without paying, ads should be enough for at least minimal progress even if it's slow, they do reach out in the…
More pay to win garbage, avoid like the plague
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.