The BlackthornProd GameDev Challenge Controversy - My Response 

Official challenge video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-20q9E-DHlNI.html Game I'm working on: store.steampowered.com/app/1081830/Blood_And_Mead Come chat on discord: discord.gg/yeTuU53

When I watched the video, I felt that them rolling back your changes was the fucked up part. The game didn’t evolve in the way they wanted, so they changed it back. Kinda defeats the purpose…

Your choice made sense. There wasn't an actual game by the time you got it, and no communication means no context/no idea what the previous devs intended

I thought: -BtP changing it from FPS to Sim was justified due to it being misunderstood as an intro🙂 -You changing it to a Shooter was justified due to there being no core game loop otherwise🙂 -BtP backpedaling it back into a Sim was not justified and felt like a non-collaborative "imposing of the will" 🙃

My favourite pass the game moment of all time was “where is my helicopter?” Unexpected changes are the essence of the challenge!

I agree! looking at the final video it's clear the game could have been better, but the no communication makes it difficult to all work towards the same goal. Still a fun project to work on!

For what it’s worth, I applauded your decision to turn the loose systems you received into an actual game. I have tremendous respect for Blackthorn, but the direction they wanted to take the game was no more valid than yours, and I thought it was very surprising and a shame that they scrapped your work first thing upon getting the project back. To me, what they did this time (trying to force their direction with no regard for the previous dev’s work) goes completely against the spirit of a no communication challenge. Seeing what happened, I’m not too convinced about that future « don’t remove anything » rule either. Having a meeting beforehand would defeat the purpose of such a challenge too, because chaos is part of the fun, and so is not knowing what direction the game will take.

I find it lowkey funny that BlackthornProd seemed to expect people to get angry at you, but almost all the criticism I saw was directed at BlackthornProd instead. I completely agree take that at the point you got the game there was no discernable direction to the game, and I don't think people can understand what it's like to participate in a Pass the Game challenge without having done one themselves. It's a little annoying that every PTG challenge ends up with comments complaining about the change in direction, but hopefully the new rule will help

For clarity: The controversy is not with my changes, rather those made by Blackthornprod, which came across as hypocritical in the final edit. In response they got pretty beat up in the comments, and the challenge now has 1k+ dislikes after just a couple of days - possibly their most down-voted challenge.

Honestly this isn't the first time for BlackthronProd. They do this all the time when they do one of these challenges. Its one of the reasons that its been suggested in the comments quite a lot that there be a rule added that you can only build on another devs work and not remove it. Though thats basically impossible to do or enforce without communication. Its just really really annoying that challenge after challenge they do this while the other devs try and build off of what came before, for the most part. Maybe instead there is a specific genre and style (like fps horror) said at the start of the project and thats all for the devs.

Blackthornprod and controversy kinda go hand in hand at this point. I haven't even watched the video in question, but I'm gonna guess they took the game in their own direction as usual? I get the feeling these challenges aren't for the noble cause of giving indie devs a moment in the limelight, but simply because it's a concept that nets a lot of views. I do love seeing the participating devs show off their skills though.

Giving your own input, direction and twist is what all of this is about, right? The worst offender of "Doing what the heck I want" is BTP themselves, 9/10 times turning some cool systems and ideas into another cookie cutter TD game with zombie millipedes. Always the millipedes...

After watching the video, I was really excited by the initial horror intro that Ajackster created. I think going from there to a top down perspective was a really weird choice by BlackThornProd. When you made changes, it made complete sense to me, the game was very directionless when you first got it. Your changes also tied in better with the creepiness of the intro. I wouldn't watch an intro like that and assume to then play a circus management game. Overall, it very much felt like BlackThornProd had their ideas, and really pushed them too hard. Ajackster really put the crew in a great direction, and that was derailed. Which is fine, that happens. But it really bothered me that the disclaimer got added before yours and not just the whole video.

You made the right choice. I was shocked when blackthronprod immediately changed it back when it didn't suit their "intended" proper vision.

It’s funny that after the disclaimer and your section, blackthorn decided to revert it to their idea instead of the first devs.

The thing you received looked like a test scene for an asset pack. And blackthornprod had the nerve to put the disclaimer before your part like he did't trashed the first devs work. Insane

The initial choice of the brothers made no sense even if you see it as an intro and the second definitely didn't either. It felt really disruptive and as if they chose ahead of this challenge that they were going to make a circus builder and all their work went into just that regardless of what anyone else was doing

This honestly reminded me of that time where initially we were getting a movement shooter like ultrakill, but then a dev scrapped it all and made it just like the game they were developing. There seriously needs to be a "No Delete" rule

Personally I was a little disappointed when the blackthorn brother made it more of a stationary game and was happy when you changed that.

I participated in the GameDev Challenge. The biggest disappointment possible because BlackthornProd does what he wants and doesn't care about the people who help him with the videos.

I second this very mature response. You're the logical heart of the Indie Game Community my friend. I was actually invited to a BTP episode but our game ended up being too complicated to make into an episode. There's no villain, no bridges burned, sometimes things just don't work out and you have to pivot. Noah and Liam are working really hard creating a community and I say let's just keep supporting that any way we can. It's to the advantage of anyone who cares about the Indie Game Community.

I feel like the biggest miss is having a special factor like you said in terms of these cool mocap suits, then failing to really show them off. The first dev really tried to show case the suits, but after the view of the game was pulled back so far to be the top down it just looked at all the clowns and kids just had a similar bounciness that could have been a simple animation. I think a simple change that allows back tracking of ideas but also limits “deletion” would be to have some clearer game themes. It’s left to the first dev to come up with something and often it gets lost in the various challenges. It doesn’t have to be detailed but and example could be just fps,horror, action or top down, sim management.

With the Penguin game, there were so many mini games. Everyone added their own. The least they could have done was turn your Bullet Hell into a mini game. That way they could have both ideas.

I appreciate you guys putting these videos out, I really enjoy them (and the twists). These videos are also great people coming up through CS degrees (like me) to experience some of your methods and creative thought process.

I actually liked more the bullet haven direction you have given it than the management sim, it turns out.

Really glad to see you participating of the challenge, and HAPPY NEW YEAR! :D In my opinion, there is no problem changing stuff, sometimes is better to the end game, and as you said, the stage that you got was like a mini-game/experiment, nothing solid. A lot of gamejams that I participated the game becomes better when I start to think "less is more" and remove stuff. Maybe in future at least the game genre could be clear and solid to everyone before the challenge begins. The BlackThor comments are angry about changes in previous episodes too, don't take it personally.

Your respectfulness and honor is very commendable. I think you made a good choice and the result of this should be BTP reconsidering some things from the irony of it all, but not being hated for their perspective.

I feel like it's become a stereotype for there to be chaos and early dev visions are scrapped/ignored with BTP's dev mashups. It's a shame because concept is so fun to watch play out, but they've waited far too long to implement the no-removal rule. I'm truly sad nothing happened in the direction of Ajackster's idea. That was a stellar creative hook to start off with. Kind of wish BTP would just host these and stop getting themselves involved, making forced reroutes. I can't believed they had the audacity to boo you for your detour and then turn around and completely scrap your direction. At first I was also thrown off by your decision to scrap things, but I'm glad you were able to point out how there should have been a clear game loop by your turn. Hopefully 2024 yields much more positive mash ups instead of such chaotic and destructive ones.

I'm impressed with how communicative you guys are being with the audience and, for what it's worth, I applauded your decision when I first watch the video because there genuinely wasn't a game before you stepped in but I also understood why BTP would want to revert the change.

I think in general I don't think changes should be seen as a bad thing. HOWEVER I do think changing the whole style of a game in a challenge where you're not communicating with others is a bit odd. I think part of the fun is seeing what you can add onto something. Yeah sometimes removing stuff makes a game better, but this is a jam and a challenge, might as well run with that idea full force since that makes things more fun. At least I'd prefer a more chaotic and interesting jam game vs something I know someone has made before. I wouldn't say i'm MAD but yeah, it would be nice if future challenges were set up in a way to minimize removing someone's idea. At least for the blind challenges. As someone that keeps up with the challenges it "is" getting a little weird seeing Blackthorn tunneling the games into top-down management sims. It would be fun to see everyone pushed outside of their comfort zone to see what kinda game you guys can make. that's just my take tho, if you're having fun then that's all that really matters.

Thank you for giving your view and thoughts on the video. I hope a lot of people see this and rethink the way they look at these challenge videos (I certainly will). On a side note, I'm also looking forward to Blood and Mead.

The new rule is ridiculous. Removing stuff is a part of normal game development, let alone something wacky like a no-comms challenge. I get what they're trying to accomplish, but a more direct solution would be to allow the first person to set the genre and provide a short description in the beginning so people are bound to it in later rounds.

I thought you did great! In the challenge you exaggerated how controversial your decision would be. I thought you didn't really get rid of much. You used all the pieces and turned it into a game!

I knew this type of video would eventually happen, especially with that last video.. I do hope it improves and I can only see that no remove feature being a last ditch effort to restructure the chaotic format that's been created

I think your changes were good and yes, the disclaimer was super ironic, lol.

Thank you for posting this!! I usually watch all of those "pass it on" challenges on BlackthornProd, but somehow missed this particular one. Your video came on my feed before the challenge video itself. I paused your video 1/2 way through to go watch the video in question. I think you did nothing wrong either. And I extra appreciate this video for explaining your thought process and reiterating for the audience that there is no bad blood and everyone seems to know what they're signing up for. I wonder why that disclaimer was added. I wonder if another dev did infact have their feelings hurt..? But as you said the "no communication" is the part that adds some quirkyness and chaos. That should be embraced. But that doesn't mean that every single thing that is added should not be changed/removed. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is edit ourselves. Great video and great work on the game!

Honestly, the first time I saw a "game" in this challenge was when you did that. What was it before that? I didn't get it

To be honest I don't really care about drama I personally am not offended or anything like that. But when I saw video and after first dev Blackthornprod just went like "oh cool, here we have intro in which you as a player end in a FPS type of scene... cool, lets make a RTS out of it" I kinda felt like first few minutes of a video was just pointless and I was confused :P. After that it just went downhill and frankly your change wasn't that bad. Mostly BTP changes and way of thinking was confusing, because of shifting project to theyr liking. Most of those "dramas" from this series comes from changes to genre. Maybe every video should have genre theme "FPS" or something like that. That way even if devs will change some things they probably will stay focused on similar goal. Right now it is just pure chaos and sometimes cool things come out of it, but most of the time just confusion and that weird feeling on viewer side is achieved from this series. Nonethless it is cool series... most of the time at least :)

I personally subscribed to your channel immediately after seeing you make such a bold decision in the video.

Could be fun to have a file you pass along with the project that's like a limit of 20 words for devs to communicate to the following devs.

It seems like most of the comments I've seen are berating BlackThornProd for their changes, not yours. You did your best and it would have probably been a better game for it. It's interesting that they left the disclaimer in when editing even though they're the ones that made the most drastic change. How do you watch the intro scene that was initially set-up and think "strategy game"? Anyway, happy new year and looking forward to seeing your progress on your game! Good luck!

The thing about these collabs is that it could really boost your carreer and give you popularity, or do the opposite. I've seen multiple devs get hate due to their decisions, usually these dev decisions are "removing prev devs work" like that one dev in another video that removed an entire level and art of a previous dev. But at the same time, many youtubers had their channels bolstered and had a massive view count and subscriver coutn change after the collab

Clearly a lot of really difficult obstacles across this event (not just technical code but quickly adapting to unexpected circumstances) and you ran at them head on throughout this challenge!

On blood and mead,you add a dimension were you fight version of yourself and after you get a companion with few skills to aid you,etc

I really enjoyed the challenge video and your contributions to it, the BTP guys do a great job running them. For what it's worth I agree that the changed rule may not be for the best. Game design is all about iteration and so much dev time goes into things that never see the light of day in normal games, not just challenges, but I'm sure they'll continue to evolve the rules over time to get the best result. You hit the nail on the head though, at the end of the day the goal of these challenges is really the video itself rather than the game, for better or worse.

I’m glad someone got triggered cause now we have more Lost Relic content. Always enjoy your uploads man.

anyone knows how that suit is called to make animation? and what software should be used with it?

How did you get Rocoko to sponsor you? And by sponsor do you mean they loan you the suit or gave it to you?

I thought that what you did was appropriate and made the game fun.

Switching to a top-down-ish game to show off mocap suit technology may not have been the best decision.

I have watched all the Blackthorn gamedev challenges and have enjoyed most until now. But his overtaking the project into the top down game that he is strong in developing, it just loses the actual intriguing aspect of the videos. He does this every time and this video just stood out so much because it was heading one direction and just lost it's soul as soon as it reached him. I will continue to watch his videos and I hope he doesn't just defend himself in this occurance but actually listens to the complaints and realises what he has been doing maybe even without him recognising his habit

In John's defense, this isn't the first time a dev scrapped large parts of the existing game in the BTP challenge. I wanna say it was the pig one in which an entire dev's work on art assets was nullified by a later dev. Either way, I think the final synthesis between both loops worked out well enough and if this prompted Noah to impose a new "No Removals" policy going forward, then that will make future projects that much better for all. Would also be interested in seeing how people go about planning and recording their process for these challenges, since a large part isn't just them contribuing to building the game, but showing it off to the public and all the edits that go into the final video. Something like that would be valuable for anyone doing similar challenge runs in the future.

I'm not opposed to the "don't remove" rule at all. I think it's a good idea if implemented correct... it does say "don't remove" but it doesn't say "don't change"... I really think these challenges are best approach with an improvisation mindset and using the idea of "yes, and..." to build one on top of another... If you ever seen or heard an improv group you can see that the settings and conversations can completely change 180° despite they never remove or block each other, they always build on top of each other... the rule essentially encompasses the idea of "take what you were given and add information on top of it" ... That doesn't mean you can't take a really simple effect and flesh it out, quote the opposite... you should often take the essence of what was already done by others, and add to it, improve it, re-imagine it... but never remove it completely... Obviously as the game evolves there will be some vestigials that are no longer in use... Obviously you will have to rewrite code, remake some assets, redefine rules and the old ones will have to get removed just to keep the project managable, but it wouldn't be like "well, I don't want it to be 2D, so I remake it in 3D"... it should be more like "ok, it's in 2D, let's spruce it up, lean into it, or add a twist in 3D to it...". Because ultimately limitation breeds creativity, and if the devs in the challenges just drop half the mechanics and introduce a set of their own mechanics, then they were never challenged to be creative with what they were given... BtP has to make sure to not implement the "don't remove" rule carefully, so it doesn't hinder the creative and project management experience. The definition of the rule should be more than 2 words... in fact I'd change it to "don't subtract" rather than "don't remove" to start off... Just disallowing anyone from removing anything will likely collide hard with the intention of the challenge :/

I completely supported and congratulated your choice. Just putting myself in your position, I could not see a viable way of expanding upon the project you were given. MY frustration and disappointment came with the fact that BTP decided to completely remove the contribution of two game developers (one of which was you) work just because the game wasn't turning out to be yet another top-down management game. BTP decided to not welcome a fun plot-twist to the video that would have ultimately made a game that would be much more fun and embraced by everyone watching (nobody wants to see yet another top-down management game), which made a lot of people mad.

Totally agree with your first call. Tarodev was wrecked in their comments to take a jumbled and turn it into something actually playable and fun, even though he had to remove a few things to do that. tbh I think the hilarity of this sometimes tug of war between devolpers is part of the fun watching these kind of challenges and it's okay if sometimes the endresult is just an entertaining to watch mess.

I liked your direction tbh. While a top down shooter isn't the most unique thing, you gave the devs coming next a chance to build on top of an actual game. BTP just made a menu system using other people's assets.

Personally i like the no removal rule because it was clearly placed to prevent another centipede incident where someone spends their entire turn on something cool then has it immediately scrapped and replaced with a lesser equivalent 1 or 2 turns later, like the art hand or the cold map in the magic game

As someone who has participated in a pass the game challenge, I feel can weigh in as well. Unfortunately, their audience has been desiring something other than Pass the Game for a while now, but they don't seem to know it. As you said, the idea and intrigue of a challenge like this is meant to be born from the lack of communication, and from the miscommunications or new ideas which emerge from that lack thereof. During the one I participated in, people began demanding a "no changes rule," which runs directly counter to what we know as good and iterative game development-- if something is unfinished or needs changing, it should be changed. If someone misunderstands that need: There's drama, and a human element, which should be interesting viewing. Sometimes those ideas fall short, or don't crystallize in time, but people getting upset at any of the developers for trying to make their mark on a project, misunderstanding the intention of something, and changing a direction, does not support this style of content. The fault is not in you or Noa, but yes, in part due to the conceit of the challenge, and also in the audience for misidentifying the issue they have with the videos. They are not upset with the change in direction but instead asking for something new. Perhaps their new decision to add a no changes rule will lead to content the audience prefers, but I also believe that it may lead to even more bizarre and non-functional projects. Time will tell. Regardless, I agree with you about the journey being the most important (and for me, interesting) part. I had so much fun participating in mine and I hope the audience reaction to the last two projects doesn't hamper others' enjoyment of participation. I worry that all the negative and loud reactions will lead to very safe and less compelling development.

Having some sort of chaos and drastic changes should be part of the challenge and it's totally fine but the issue is that BTP always changes the games into a management sort of game. I really liked the first dev's idea, would've loved to see a first-person horror game building upon that start. BTP got his feelings hurt and ruined everything. He should only host the challenge as we are quite bored by his ideas and style. Cmon, a first-person horror game into a top down shitty clown management idea... The game became an actual game only after you had your first turn.

can we get a blood and mead demo??

It's a cool concept to have no communication. But there could still be a rough goal that everyone shares. That way everyone is at least rowing in the same direction.

I was more bothered by the fact that Noa undid your changes instead of going with the flow, I know they had a vision in mind but it did feel like they undermined your work, centipede boss style. Still loved the video.

Just watched the challenge video; no shade towards BlackthornProd, it's all in good fun at the end and you were able to advertise your channel as well as Blood And Mead which was cool. However, I really get the impression that his disclaimer was 100% because he didn't like what you did. Game dev viewers are generally some of the most chill and wholesome around; no one was going to get on your case for your changes, that's kind of the whole point and fun of a no communication challenge. Ironically, the comments of the video were tearing apart BlackthornProd for turning the FPS horror into a sim game. I don't agree with this criticism, but I think people were responding to his hypocrisy of scrapping your work immediately after suggesting that scrapping the work of other devs was a bad thing. I honestly think there would be no controversy had everyone done exactly the same thing, but without any disclaimer or rule change. They wanted to create a clown circus sim, but the only way anyone would know that is if they were told it directly. Creating something extremely vague in a no communication challenge is so strange. I really get your change of direction, it shows how pragmatic of a dev you are and I think that's a great quality.

To be fair, the unique twist lends to a lot more than people probably realise, even at its simplest face value it adds a layer to the later stages where by if the children can be whacked or re-kidnapped by the enemies you then have to juggle the amount of children you are in the process of rescuing. Do you try to go for a big dump and get as many in one journey as you can, or do you make lots of light and fast runs like a guerrilla ninja

I think the key is that there should only be additions OR IMPROVEMENTS, which may comprise replacements or even minor removals, because the foundation of it is remaining faithful to existing premises and making something out of it by thinking outside the box. (And your changes were definitely okay because the game was just an animation showcase lol.) Blackthorn's series is one of those that I want to like but he just can't seem to get right, so I'm hoping the nuance isn't lost on him. The change itself could be a net benefit, but the way he finally added it, by ignoring the request for months until it suits him in the moment, comes across as disingenuous and egotistical. I'm not saying that was his intent, but that's how it was perceived, and the impression I got before I decided to examine the situation closer since I'm good at understanding intent, but the general audience won't bother.

Did you get to keep the suit?

For some reason I had skipped that BtP video, but I didn't think there was any problem with your work. It was justified, well meaning and within the spirit of the challenge. There have been other devs in the past who didn't live up to that so well. Anyhow, at least to me, questioning dev decisions as a viewer is part of the entertainment.

I think the changes you made were actually really solid, my only real problem was them reverting it back and treating it like a "war" of ideas. But despite liking your change, I still think the "no remove" rule will be great. you could still bring out new vision, you would just need to find work arounds instead of removing stuff. As an example, you know how you removed the bare bone management game and made it into a bullet hell? (which again, I liked) what if instead the option of putting down the builds was still there, but you controlled the main guy to go fight enemies. Think war craft 3 (idk if 1 and 2 do this too or not I only played 3), and how it's manage buildings, but also move around with your hero to fight enemies. A bit ambitious for the limited time? sure maybe, but I think it would make for way more unique final products. Like, already a lot of these game challenges are ending with very similar games being made by the end. But again, don't worry, I don't think anyone was mad at you. the criticism was nowhere near as bad as the centi boss thing that happened some time back and the vast majority of it was directed at blackthornprod discarding your changes, not you making the changes to begin with.

Ik this is somewhat of a hot-take, however I believe the changes YOU made should have been kept and would have bettered the game. TBH i am SICK of the same types of games being made in these challenges, these being, the click, build, and create troops to fight. I respect btp, but I think the games he makes for these challenges specifically feel VERY same-y. I applaud your efforts to make the game something interesting, and I find it unfortunate that it has turned into this entire situation. keep it up man

To be honest, I liked your changes to the game better than anything else, it wasn’t even a game before you made your changes

I'm really happy about The upcoming "No deletes" rule. I like these videos but seeing devs make big pivots while others will spend their time polishing other devs content. But it is a "Broken telephone" game 😂

The entire point of no communication is that there will be mistakes and miscommunication. Sometimes it will go well, sometimes not. Personally I'm all for juat having a 7 devs make a game WITH communication as a series as well.

My favorite of these challenges was the one where every single dev completely changed the game, or joked about doing so, as soon as they got their hands on it. I honestly thought it was an agreed upon theme for the video. Sadly I can't remember which one that was...

While these challenges can be fun. This also shows why good communication, even just a little, is key for developing a game or any type of project. I think the decision you made was justified considering the situation.

I honestly gave up watching these types of videos from them because BtP have a habit of just scrapping all the design and work in the last phase and doing their own thing. This is at least the 3rd time they've done it. Why even have other people participate if you're just going to do something completely different at the end?

It feels like they have one single idea and every pass-the-game challenge is them trying to shoehorn in that idea even if all the other devs go in another direction. This isn't even the first or the worst offense, it's a consistent pattern of ruining a video that otherwise has lots of potential. edit: actually, blackthornpod has only two ideas, not one: sim/management, and boss fight. They shoehorn that in every video

I'd never seen or heard of that guy before, and after watching that video after seeing this I don't think I'll ever watch again lmao

Don't take it personally. One of the previous challenges had huuuuuge switches in direction and the comment section went rightfully ablaze. So I actually do believe it's more of a reaction to previous blowbacks that they decided to add that disclaimer and generally changed their direction for these projects for 2024 alltogether. Sure, your change seemed more obvious (and I didn't like it initially tbh), but they also didn't catch the irony that they already changed a lot and a "no changes" rule needs to be refined to make sense anyway. You'd probably want to iron out bugs or update textures later, so at a minimum these need to change and it already renders the new rule unusable without major details attached.

I actually think it's very hypocritical of Blackthornprod. He's the one that kept changing it to an RTS style game. It was clearly supposed to be first person, he made it RTS. You made it a game, he immediately made it RTS again. The controversy should be with them.

Most people dont mind the change or remove content when it means to make the game better. I think people were mad when someone comes in says "not what i make , so im gonna change the entire thing" that messes us up.

Ajax made the base and it was a proper settup... this whole top down in general wasn't the move. Keep it first person. IMO should have been a horror circus game in first person. But that's where I stopped caring. The top down shit is getting old. Love the video, way to take feedback and explain In a mature and easy way to understand. Keep up the good work!

what kind of contraversy can there be at a gamejam? Ничего не понимаю.

I understand your stance and for the most part I agree with you! However the second set of changes the blackthorn brothers made seemed to undermine the hard work you and others had done before and that was the part that rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like a dodgy move and if it had been me working with them, I'd have been furious. Im glad you seem to be unphased but this particular behaviour doesn’t bode well for future projects of theirs. If collaborative works aren't their strong suit then they should shift to a different form of content for their own benefit. Even with no conversation between the working parties involved, there is still an unspoken agreement that this project is a team built effort, it seems to me that everyone respects that but the blackthorn brothers. Just because it is their channel and their idea does not indicate they should have any leeway in making executive decisions for everyone else when it comes to, again, WORKING IN A TEAM. It's reads to me as childish and very self-interested.

We haven't seen the details of how the PtG challenges will run in 2024 yet (that I know of), but I feel that a blanket "don't remove anything" rule is not nuanced enough. In the early phases of the challenge, such a rule feels like a good idea - the early devs should try their hardest to build on what is already there (even if they radically re-purpose it). But in the final phases, the rule should be relaxed... in order to get the game into some sort of cohesive whole, some things might need to be removed.

I would say that the proposed change doesn’t make any sense as even if you are working 100% solo sometimes things need to be removed or replaced.

Hi, I found your change a good direction because before you there was only an assets bank no game,you create a game with it. And BlackthornProd got a passive of ruining "every" game in the "pass the game challenge no com" (adding big monster boss everytimes) so its very annoying on the long run to see them always fall from the same mistakes... And in every recent video they sell a course why should we trust them if they cant change their style of "top down", "2D", "art style of noah" to adapt to situations, to add things the website of the product check all the red flags of scam products xD. The turn of their channel made me cringe. They're not indie devs anymore, they're youtuber + product sellers. I Like the fact that they promote a lot of indie devs youtubers but that stop there. Watch your channel since sometimes now, love your content.

I love their pass the game challenge videos, but I was very disappointed watching this one... I was excited when I saw that you were in the challenge, and I REALLY liked how you corrected the game's lack of direction I was equally disappointed when a future developer had undone basically all that you did, I thought it was in poor taste and not in the spirit of the pass the game challenge that I've seen to this point, I really would've preferred they kept what you had to see where it would've gone, thematically it just felt like it fit better

YOU were the only one that made that good. You made great choices and quality content. Then your choices got lost, granted no communication it’s fair to assume no fault, but the complete overhaul they did to what you added was just bad decisions from BTP his work was soulless and felt like a corporate cash grab style game. We want BTP to make something else rather than whatever he did .

My opinion is that people want the "Don't Delete" rule is because they get to see the progression of the game throughout the video. Like how you get annoyed at a gameshow when someone gets the question, that you know the answer to, wrong. You're frustrated because you know the answer, but they don't. With no communcation, a short timeframe, and no idea how the game used to be, you try to make the changes you think would help the game or that you know how to do. I was a developer in one of the recent videos (Pigs VS Demons, my changes were in one of his examples of why the rule is being added 😅) and although in hindsight I think I removed too much, at the time I was doing what I thought would make the game more cohesive and easier for the developers after me. If I had known what the previous developers intended, I wouldn't have done what I did, but that in essence is the nature of the challenge and is very subjective. Someone makes a change because they think it'll be good, someone else doesn't like it and removes/replaces it with what they think will be good. At the end of the day I think it's just coming down to people getting a little tired of the chaotic format. I don't think a "don't delete" rule will give the audience their intended result, but will be interesting to see what comes out of it

Horror FPS was the way to go!

I enjoyed your first set of changes and appreciated the way you were clearly attempting to keep as much of the "content" from the previous devs as possible, whilst leaving it in a coherent state. As you say, I think twists and turns are the nature of a "no communication" challenge - if people don't like the radical changes in direction, then it's the "no communication" bit that should be dropped, not some unenforceable/unworkable "no removing" rule. Some of my all time favourite videos in this series are precisely the ones where there were dramatic changes in theme - your helicopter getting turned into a superhero being a standout one for me (though I don't know if you've gotten over that one still!!)

that's fine really. videos are fun and do many turns and twists. its part of the fun. that hardship wasn't too clear for sure. how it was little time. still amazing results for a short time. It gets complicated how gameplay alone wasn't clear what the previous dev wanted to the point concepts were dropped. was weird how it changed back and forward. forcing it in different directions. That was weird how it was being forced again to a manage game. I think it could have just been better worded i guess. we've had one where it started out with an helicopter and mid way became a fully animated super hero. It was amazing. I think as long as its better for the project and hypes people to work on it its a great change. some even hope those get changed cuz they were place holders. These are still too recent to have a meta i guess. With time there will come better ways to flow better i'm sure. I guess this one just was too indecisive on what it wanted to be and got people confused

I never seriously fault any twists on the devs that make them (maybe in jest or in an attempt to locate the moment the project "broke" and got out of hand). Nah, if i leave one of the pass the game challenges unsatisfied, i blame it on the blackthorn brothers for something being missing from the process itself. I am also hesitant about a blanket "no deleting" rule, but i understand where it is coming from. The videos of the series that have the most negative buzz are the ones with drastic changes and a certain level of "nah, let me scrap all that and create my own vision despite not having the time to do so and working on something supposed to be collaborative". That is the key: hate comes less from the lack of communication, and more from ignoring the collaborative elements with people overstepping their bounds to make it "their game (ownership)". It was pretty clear you were trying to work within the broken system, and i didnt see much hate for you specifically. Basically, there needs to be some sort of adjustment to the process and "no communicating" bit without losing the entire identity of the series. Sticking to a single game direction decided beforehand looses some of the spark of that initial vision, but the alternative is to have the participating devs line up their strengths and development goals ahead of time so as to know when the core loop is meant to be established. Some devs focus on the visual aspect while providing very little gameplay, others have an eye for polish, and some have an eye for mechanical systems, and they are not always arranged in a proper order for a smooth progress, and the participating devs dont really seem to know what the others specialize in unless they are specifically the second dev. Yes, adaption is still a thing regardless of the change, but something is missing if the success rate is maybe 50%. The last possible solution is the issue of narrative in how the video is presented. Touched on briefly here with the "they warned the project was going to go off the rails", there is a case to be made that much of the overall hate would disappear if there was a bit more effort put into the story between each dev, one where the brothers point out the positives over leaving the negatives to scream through change. Each solution has its own problems, but it isnt really the type of thing that can simply be fixed by speculation, either. I am not fully convinced i found the right words for what i am trying to say, but at the core, it is that the project did not fall apart because of you alone, nor were you the source of most of the ire. If anything, the ire came from "my game changed. Lets revert it with no consideration as to WHY it was changed," which was the result of those who sandwiched you in development order.

I honestly felt your decisions throughout the contest had been the most reasonable.

Many people using the internet will always complain and most of the time it's better to just ignore them.

What most likely happened is that BEFORE the challenge started there was some discussion on direction within their little group which you were not part of. So you were at a disadvantage by being handed a bunch of random systems for a direction that was previously discussed. These kinds of challenges are very revealing with regards to a dev's personality. A choice is made at each stange of the challenge to either respect the work of the prior dev or throw it out the window because you think you know better.

It's a challenge where developers aren't allowed to communicate! Of course there are going to be mishaps like this, that's the whole point!

I think the people are not persé mad about the removing of the systems, but the forced direction of the same stuff always happening in game jams. The dev's that explore different genre's make the crowd excited, they want something original but it gets beaten down fast by a change of direction in the same old games we always see in game jams. I realize game jams are not a place to experiment that much, but they sure as hell are a place to use your creativity to add to a project, not to keep it on a forced track.

Yeah that Project was a little bit "weird" ... I think the Bullet Hell Idea was actually one of the better ones that could have been done at that point

Bro Its alright I was okay with and I think I eve prefered your changes