Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 2,120 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 6.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.0.0, updated 2026-07-08.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 6.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.0.0, updated 2026-07-06.
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 3
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
deleting my review in light of recent events on 6/30/26. BRING BACK VALKO AS INTENDED. It is poorly managed, dev team does not care at ALL about what the fanbase wants. Ads are full of false advertising and blatantly lie about the content…
FALSE ADVERTISEMENT. New love interest was announced, and then taken away a day later. The company refuses to acknowledge global players wants. They're silent about the heinous actions of their fanbase. Constantly and poorly censoring…
the company that didn't want to communicate with their player base properly. disrespect their player wishes. keep ignoring the thing their player need. many bugs. fake advertisement, expensive stuff for cheap design. repetitive animation.
Pay to progress
*UPDATE they've ignored customers for over 3mo, increased p2w monetization and locked content previously available for free I was excited for Valko to release, I have confirmation emails and push notifications from this week but the…
not recommended for you to play. even it was good, this game need huge space for you to install, pay to win, stingy with their players, didn't listen to global players only the mainland players, always procrastinating the main story or…
this game is so greedy, you have to pay to win, and the second hand racism is so bad.
Paywall blocks the basics
The five stars are laughable, y'all are just bots who are bootlicking a greedy, terrible company who don't care for ftp and global players. Saying people are ungrateful? People have been grateful since 2024, now look what's happening…
I loved this game but recently I uninstalled it. The company has poor communication skills and ignores their players. The game lacks many things, like better lighting for darker skinned MCs, curly hair, ways to farm dias for f2p Hunters…
limited customization options for the main character were available. most, if not all are locked behind a mandatory paywall when players are not willing to spend. the game crashes on every story being read. so many promises being broken…
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.