I'm a little offended that you call this building a game in QBASIC when it clearly would not actually run in QBASIC. I built games in QBASIC growing up, and definitely didn't have access to the stuff you have in QB64. I was excited to hear about someone building such an impressive game using that toolchain, so it's a letdown to find out that it was a lie.
It's cool that you put constraints on yourself by using the BASIC syntax, but it's really dishonest to pretend this is being built in classic QBASIC and leverage it for press without making any distinction between the tools you're using and the tools people actually had available to them in QBASIC.
Quote from the PC World article, that is supposedly from you:
"It would show that even old, abandoned tools and the most basic pieces of software can still be put in the hands of someone who wants to create their dream and result in beautiful things happening."
This to me suggests that your goal is to show that actual QBASIC, the abandoned programming tool from the DOS era, can be used to build cool games. A noble goal. Using QB64 and SDL and a bunch of modern tools, however, does very little to achieve that goal.
Maybe this is just nit-picking, but QBASIC is a very specific name - the name of a particular BASIC interpreter that came with versions of DOS. You could have easily been more general and said you were building the game in BASIC, and been completely accurate, but then I suppose that wouldn't have gotten you an article on PC World.
And to give some context, I have in the past encountered people who were ACTUALLY building cool modern games in QBASIC. They did this by writing commands out to disk from their QBASIC game and then running windows apps to do the work of talking to libraries in order to do MIDI playback or read from game controllers. This, at least, counted as using QBASIC, and was quite a feat of engineering - even if those games weren't pure QBASIC.
The game looks cool, though!