Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 403 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.
This analysis describes version 1.1.22 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.22, updated 2026-09-23.
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 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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Downloaded the app due to an ad that showed the game playing songs from TV shows and answering which show they corresponded to. Looked so fun! I played for a very long time but the only sound was the in game sound effects. I played long…
You people suck. The bad guy in star wars is not Darth Vader. He is the good guy. Look it up. Also you are guilty of false advertising. This was supposed to be a picture based game.
Nothing like ad, which really looked fun and only reason I downloaded it. Ads after every 5 questions. I AM JUST SO SICK OF THESE DEVELOPERS MAKING FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS....think about this... If you actually make the game like the…
Aggressive ad load
Not at all like their ad attempting to persuade you to download this game, and that's very lame. Of course, lots and lots and lots of ads over and over and over again, and when you win a round and have to quit the app for some reason, it…
Nothing I hate more is forced ads. And worse, these ads are 1min+ as well. Blatant profiteering like this gets games uninstalled and the companies blacklisted. I'd give it 0 if I could. In today's day and age with play store packed with…
Forced ads at the end of every level.
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.