Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 1,325 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 1.17.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.17.0, updated 2026-09-16.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.17.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.17.0, updated 2026-09-12.
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.
Aggressive ad load
too many ads
such a money hungry studio. the advertisement Demo is actually quite fun but the game itself is a grindy slog that forces you to play twice as long for a quarter of the reward. the enemies are twice as fast and they have advertisements…
fun but to many ads
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
game itself seems to be of good design. it's fun to play. Buutttt like most games of this style you can only play a certain amount of times until you run out of energy. you only get 10 and it takes 25mins to recharge 1 unless you pay. I…
Good concept, mediocre execution — After each death, expect an ad. Normally I’d say that’s normal for a free game, but levels are so short, you trade a minute gameplay for 15 seconds in ad. Fighting through that, energy takes 30 minutes…
2 to 3 things maybe more to come — Imma write this as I go ight one energy has got to go I get it we don’t want people to be tired and get bored but like even the greatest of games like shadow fight 2 having energy was a bummer they at…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
ads say no ads on this game.. riddled with ads.. straight up false advertising
Bait and Switch (ADs) — The ad I watched in another game that convinced me to download this game promoted it as an ad-free experience. It is NOT! Not only are there reward-based ads, but forced ads between rounds.
Too many sex ads — Game is fun, but so far every advertisement has been sexually suggestive. I am a parent and my young child plays on my phone from time to time. So, it’s going to be a hard pass. Oh well. Update: the email response was…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 8 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.