DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
West Game
LEXIANGCO.,LIMITED · Games

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 407 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High6 signal sources407 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 7.4.0, updated 2026-09-23.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Multiple ad networks bundled
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 929ba27b967d…
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
What we saw: Bundles 7 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, Chartboost, Google Mobile Ads (AdMob / Ad Manager) and 3 more

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

Reported by users: Pay to progress
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Pay to progress: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (2.0% of 407 reviews scanned)

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.

Pay to progress

Very good construction and development game, providing you are in a small to medium-sized state. Large states are dominated by the pay-to-win bullies, who are responsible for the mass of abandoned "dead towns" in each state.

4★ · Google Play · 2026-09-16

Blatantly pay-to-win, and no attempt is made to stop the money-wasting bullies. Why, for example, don't they make alliance territories (hives) out of bounds? Those places should be safe zones. But, no, the bullies take priority…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-09-18

please don't play this game... it is expensive like hell... pay to win.. they only care about money, and they are making a lot of it. Now, if you like to waste money, by all means, do so. 😂😂 but a casino game is way better. At least you…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-09-03

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: unknown6 independent signals407 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.