How We Pick Games for Gerk Games

The question I get most isn't about any specific game — it's how we decide what goes up. People assume there's some algorithm or curation service behind the scenes. There isn't. It's just me, Leo, and a shared list that Max keeps in a Notes document.

We kill way more ideas than we ship. Like, a lot more. Here's how it works behind the scenes.

Where games come from

Max keeps a running list. Whenever either of us plays something interesting — a mechanic that surprised us, a classic we think deserves a modern take, or just a stupid idea that makes us laugh — it goes on the list. Right now there are a few hundred entries. Most will never be built.

Before anything gets prototyped, we ask one question: can we make this genuinely fun in three days? If the answer is no — if it needs a month of engine work or a team of artists — it's off the table. We're a two-person operation. That constraint is part of the point.

The 30-second test

Once there's a rough prototype, I play it for exactly 30 seconds. If the core loop isn't fun in that window, it doesn't get saved by polish. I've killed games at this stage that had beautiful visuals and sound design — none of it mattered because the moment-to-moment play was dull.

About 40 percent of our prototypes die here. That's by design. Better to dump a week of work than ship something people quit in 10 seconds.

What survives gets five minutes

If a game passes 30 seconds, I give it five minutes. This is where we catch the problems that don't show up immediately: unclear mechanics, pacing that falls apart, levels that feel unfair. We also check the obvious stuff — no pay-to-win nonsense, no pop-ups every 60 seconds, nothing that wouldn't feel right for a general audience.

Another 30% wash out here. The killer is almost always "monetization sickness" — games that would be fun if they weren't constantly shaking you down. Since we don't run ads in the games themselves, most of those issues don't apply, but we still see the scars in concepts that were clearly designed around a business model first and fun second.

Does it fit?

Even good games can miss the cut. If we already have three strong action games and a new one isn't clearly better than the best of those three, it stays on the list. We'd rather have ten categories with two great games each than one category with fifteen mediocre ones.

Games don't stop being reviewed

Published games drift. A browser update changes how something renders. A balance issue we didn't catch becomes obvious after a thousand play sessions. We go through our top games every few months and pull anything that's gotten worse. Players also report issues — maybe one in five reports is a real problem, and those get fixed or the game gets pulled within a week.

What we won't put on the site

Some categories are hard no's regardless of popularity: games featuring real public figures, things that copy a recent TV or movie without permission, anything not suitable for under-13s in our general categories, games that require payment to actually play, anything that asks for personal info before letting you start.

That's why our library is tiny compared to the big portals. Size was never the goal. Every title being something we actually made and genuinely recommend — that was always the goal.

Want to suggest something?

Send us an email. We test every reasonable suggestion. About one in ten makes it onto the site. Don't be offended if yours doesn't — the odds aren't great, and we're honest about why.