Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 654 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 2.1.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.1.3, updated 2026-09-28.
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.
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Birds Eye View, level based, semi roguelite shooter. It runs smooth. Edit-Love the gameplay, low rating due to: All purchasables are far overpriced, low amount of usable carachters, low gem earn rate, low resources earn rate, low energy…
It won’t go online at all, so I can’t do anything. I can’t build anything, my energy isn’t regenerating, I can’t make any payments, and it doesn’t even show me any ads to get rewards.
I played up to level 5, where you run out of energy and can't play anymore without interacting with the monetization. it's a fun game in the Magic Survivors genre, if slightly clunky. the animation of the character spinning like a top to…
Pay to progress
Great graphics and core mechanics. The new hero drop rates are pretty low, but events are welcome. F2P is a slow grind with a massive gap vs P2W. I love a challenge, but it's unbalanced. A lack of alliance recruitment tools makes it…
Unfortunately this game is very hard to play unless you spend money. The "double your rewards" after you watch an ad crash 50% of the time. The one shot after level completion to double your rewards and it crashes. How convenient it is so…
your game really sucks. only based on pay to win fu
Aggressive ad load
Birds Eye View, level based, semi roguelite shooter. It runs smooth. Edit-Love the gameplay, low rating due to: All purchasables are far overpriced, low amount of usable carachters, low gem earn rate, low resources earn rate, low energy…
Great graphics and core mechanics. The new hero drop rates are pretty low, but events are welcome. F2P is a slow grind with a massive gap vs P2W. I love a challenge, but it's unbalanced. A lack of alliance recruitment tools makes it…
As it stands the game is unplayable without watching ads, The first 10 missions are way too easy but as soon as you hit mission 11 suddenly nothing you do will help unless u watch a ridiculous amount of ads or pay a ridiculous amount of…
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.