Structure comparison
Two games, side by side
The structural difference between two games, assembled from published specifications only. Nothing here forecasts a result or recommends either game.
Photo Safari
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.14%
- Volatility
- Low
- Win cap
- 5×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Golden Dancing Lion
Booongo
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals, Wealth
VS
Fortune Teller
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.08%
- Volatility
- Low
- Win cap
- 5×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- East Asia
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Photo Safari vs Golden Dancing Lion
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and Booongo — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- RTP cannot be compared: Golden Dancing Lion does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Golden Dancing Lion does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Photo Safari vs Fortune Teller
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 96.14% against 96.08% — Photo Safari is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5× and 5×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Low.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Photo Safari returns more in theory over the long run, while Fortune Teller reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
