# Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue

Some complicated release issues for the release outside of Japan.

Nintendo Power (from their review in January '94) says the game was available in January 1994.
GamePro (from their review in December '93) says it was available by December '93.
This newspaper from the UK on December 24, 1993 here lists it in their top 5 selling hand-held games in '93.
"The Official Game Pak Directory Compliments of Nintendo Power" (from April 1994) lists the release as November 1993.
The Cowabunga Collection from Digital Eclipse in 2022 says the US release date is "November 1993".
As we have variously conflicting release dates, I've decided to not make the approach that one is correct and others are wrong because even Nintendo seemed to dance around on when it was released. I've changed this information based on this in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

What started out as simply expanding on some reviews kind of exploded today in a total re-vamp of the article. I don't think any key information was lost, but I'll be going over it to make sure its still not missing anything major. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 06:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to have more time for GA reviews again. I'll try to get to this in the next week or so. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's start with the article body for a first pass. Once that's stable, we can circle back with the lead and any lingering issues on a second pass.
Background and plot
"Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics in the 1980s." -> "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles began as a comic book series in the 1980s. Created by Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman, ..."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"An animated television series arrived to television in late 1987." -> "An animated television series arrived was created for television by late 1987."
Slightly edited (to avoid "arrived was created", but I think I know what you mean. :) ) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"The original comic book series was not intended for as young of audience, leading the tone and character traits to change characters for the animated series." -> "The animated series changed the tone from that of the comic books, targeting a younger audience."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"Rob Lammle of Mental Floss described the Turtles as now being wise-cracking characters who were obsessed with pizza, and their rival the Shredder becoming "a bumbling cartoon villain", while April O'Neil became a news reporter who needed to continuously be rescued by the Ninja Turtles." -> "Unlike the comics, the Turtles became wisecracking pizza-lovers, the Shredder became a bumbling cartoon villain, and April O'Neil became a news reporter who frequently needed rescue."
I kind of want to keep this citing who said it because its an opinion. My understanding when things are opinions or interpretations, we should say where this comes from. But maybe we can still make this a bit better here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"Nick Thorpe of Retro Gamer magazine said the popularity of the animated series lead to its version of the characters overtaking the comics in popular consciousness." -> "The animated series overtook the comics in popular consciousness, becoming the basis for licensed video games." (I realize that's a new idea, but I believe the sources will support that.)
Similar to the above, Thorpe says this, and it makes sense, but its not really backed up by hard numbers or anything, so I kind of want to state it this way if that's okay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if the background description of the series really belongs more in the development section, as it gets more into how the series was created. It's a little odd to blend in-universe and out-of-universe information in this section.
I kind of struggled with where to put this. I feel like if you just read the plot and are unfamiliar with the series in any form, it needs some sort of background. While I did have it at one point in the "development" section, the plot does not really make sense unless you already know these characters and within the narrative of the game, it just throws you in presuming you are familiar with the characters. I know this does have that "feels funny" from a wikipedian POV where we as editors like to have certain information in some sections, but I genuinely thinks it would help someone unfamiliar with the story "get it". I've read early reviews in Japan of early Turtles games as they've got the game without the show and the reviews are all like "i don't get it!? Why turtles!?" :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"Radical Rescue's narrative involves the Leonardo, Raphael and Donatello relaxing as it has been a year since the Shredder has been defeated. " -> "The story of Radical Rescue begins a year after the Shredder's defeat, with Leonardo, Raphael, and Donatello relaxing."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"As the three watch television, their show is interrupted by April O'Neil announcing a prison break when the newscast is cut off, leading the three to spring into action to save her." -> maybe break this into two sentences, for readability.
Done. Good call. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"As Michelangelo rescues the Turtles" -> (this is a little unclear. Does the fourth turtle need to save the first three turtles?)
Tried to clarify this, he's the only playable character. After that, you can use whoever you saved so it doesn't have to be Mike. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
" On rescuing Splinter, the Turtles learn that April was also kidnapped by Shredder" -> "The turtles rescue Splinter, leading to the discovery that April was also kidnapped by Shredder."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay
I realize that there is some dispute between sources on the genre, but it would be good to start with something more definitive. e.g.: "Radical Rescue is widely considered a beat 'em up game,[1][2][3] and has later been described as a Metroidvania.[4][5][6][7][9]" (I'm not saying that's the answer, but it needs a simple general topic sentence before you dive into the debate between sources.)
I was hoping to find something like this, but from the several reviews, the ones that do mention genre are all over the map. Maybe there was like two that said beat 'em up over "platformer" vs. the more generic "action game" or "beat'em up". But honestly, I'd say the most accurate was all over the map from early reviews. It would be more convenient to just pick one, but the only one that I would say was most consistent were the later reviews who are mostly excited about the game being an early "metroidvania". So not as concise as would be for a simple one sentence thing, I think this is for the best as I don't feel like two reviews saying one genre over one is really a "majority" of reviews saying one over the other. :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"The player begins the game by taking control of the ninja turtle Michaelangelo" -> "The game begins with the player taking control of the ninja turtle Michaelangelo."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"As game progresses, the player can swap between controlling a ninja turtle once they have been rescued" -> "As the player rescues the other ninja turtles, they gain the ability to swap between them as playable characters."
Changed. (much better!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
" Each playable character can jump, attack enemies, switch between rescued characters and view a map of the world layout" -> (looking at the map feels a little funny to attribute to multiple characters, and you already mentioned swapping characters. maybe just focus on jumping and attacking, and move the map part until after you discuss the turtles' unique special abilities."
Good call. I've tried to move the map towards the end as all the other stuff is a bit more "action-oriented" if that makes sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
" The player can find health restoration items hidden in the game. These vary from health restoration items such as a pizza slice which restores the life gauge or a heart which increases the maximum capacity of the life gauge. " -> "Players can find items that affect their life gauge, including pizza slices to restore life or hearts to increase their maximum life." (I'm not sure if the game uses life and health interchangeably, but maybe try to stick with one, if that's accurate.)
So its a bit complicated. The manual and in-game screenshots says "life" for the characters health in the game. However, I don't want this to be confused with Glossary of video game terms#life, which is more about like "how many lives/tries you have in Super Mario" kind of "life". Would it be weird to link to Glossary of video game terms#health to clarify this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Let's pause there. We can try to get through the last half of this first pass after. I realize that's a lot of comments, but article is generally well written and researched. This can get to GA status with some consistent work. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Not at all a problem. I've made several of the sentence structure changes and brought up some points on changing the flow/genre details/section choice for some details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
We'll circle back on the small stuff. I want to try to figure out a solution on the first few sections, as we go.
Background, Plot, Gameplay (quick recap)
The gameplay section needs a better topic sentence to start. I see the challenge with the sources being all over the place. But what we have there now is a better second sentence. Almost anything would be better. Even if it's as simple as "Radical Rescue is an action game. ..."
While I agree that would be better. I'd rather stick to what the sources have we've found. I've even thought of trying to phrase it as something like Initial reviews Radical Rescue described it various sub-genres of an action game, but I don't know if those critics "meant" that, because genre is subjective or how some genres fit into others is going vary from person to person. I'd probably be happier to leave out the early genres and maybe cut directly to the contemporary discussion of how its viewed if that maybe helps as there is far more discussion about that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I see why you put the background about the franchise next to the plot. I truly believe it would flow better into the development, especially where the development begins with the 90s boom for the series. I also recognize the challenge of framing the plot without knowing about the turtles. What if a shorter into was provided for the plot?
Consider how other licenses from the same try to describe popular adaptations that might be unfamiliar to a reader. John Madden Football '93 or Labyrinth: The Computer Game are contemporaries. They give one or two sentences, then get into the plot.
Radical Rescue is a licensed game based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, featuring four mutant turtle protagonists: Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael. In the series, the Turtles battle against the Shredder with the help of their master Splinter and their friend April O'Neil.
I think your sentence cuts to chase better. I've kept some bits in that I think clarify some details later (i.e: its based on on ninja turtles, it pulls from various popular turtle media at the time (i.e: not just the show/comics/toys, but a mix). I clarified their anthropomorphic, not my favourite term in the world, but using mutant to describe them outside their name in the same sentence is a bit funny to me and the source itself uses the term anthropomorphic (on that note, I've also changed that the "ninja" turtles use "ninja weapons" :) ). Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Development and release
I really do think that flowing the rise of the franchise would be better here. (The plot section can retain a short summary of the characters as seen in the popular franchise.)
I think with your suggested shortening of the introduction here that cuts to the chase a bit better, yeah this section thankfully can be put here without losing some more key info. This was a great idea, I am appreciating this review! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I think now that we've got a better track on how to give a decent intro to the Turtles in the plot, I feel much more comfortable moving the info about the popularity of the turtles at the time to this spot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"Video Games & Computer Entertainment reported that by December 1990, 130 licensees developed products using the imagery from the TMNT franchise" -> "By December 1990, images from the franchise had been licensed for an estimated 130 products." (I think it's fine without attribution here, since it's a source with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy.)
I think you are right. Applied that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"The game was showcased At the 1994 Winter Consumer Electronic Show. At the trade show, the editors of Nintendo Power magazine selected specific items they felt were the "Best of Show" . Radical Rescue was among their best titles in their Game Boy category." -> "The game was showcased at the 1994 Winter Consumer Electronics Show, where Nintendo Power editors named Radical Rescue one of the "Best of Show" titles for the Game Boy category."
You don't need to tell me that's much better. Changed. :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"video game magazines and newspapers" -> "journalists" (shorter)
I'm guessing the disagreement on the date isn't regional, with different release dates in the UK and America?
I brought this up on the talk page when I was editing the article. I think in WP:VG we often go to something like the company giving a release date as the most accurate, but the releases are definitely conflicting. One UK mag says it was available in January '94, the UK newspaper had said its been selling already as they put it on a top-selling list. I'd say the latter is probably better proof of being available in the UK at least by '93. The bigger issue is Nintendo has given conflicting release periods. They've said in Nintendo Power from '94 that the game was released in January 1994. However, in later lists of recent games and releases that are available online, they state a release of November 1993. Normally I'd just at least say it was released in 1993 in the UK and US in the infobox if the months or other dates varied, but this is one of those annoying releases that's just on the cusp of New Years/Christmas releases. I'm pretty comfortable not having a solid answer as it doesn't matter too much and we still have the earliest release confirmed with the Japanese one that I have found no discrepancies in my research (thankfully!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"video game compilation" can be piped to just "compilation", as "video game" can be inferred from context.
Fair. Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Let's pause once more there. It will take some work to migrate the background section to the development section, while still retaining enough to introduce the characters for the plot. Once that's done, we can wrap up the first full pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks again for the advice on how to handle the background/plot info. I think you found a solution I'll try to apply if I ever have to tackle similar licensed games in the future. Looking forward to figuring out the best way to deal with the genre thing too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
That looks good. I'd just say... some of the background about the franchise more generally is still useful for the sake of the development section, and you didn't have to remove it entirely. It may be useful for readers to understand some of the history of the franchise. (That said, they can always go back to the main franchise article for that.)
Reception
Similar issue with past sections, the reception dives into specific details without giving much of a topic sentence. I see why that's tricky here. We don't have the benefit of a metacritic aggregator for a solid general summary. But we could try something like this:
Contemporary reviews of Radical Rescue included several high score reviews,[CVG][Game Players][Joypad] while international reviews were more critical.[Famitsu][Megafun][Video games].
Then we can follow with "Multiple reviewers praised the graphics.[1][2][3]"
"The GamePro reviewer commented that TMNT games "have always had impressive graphics, and this one doesn't disappoint" complimenting the size of the sprites and the "detailed backgrounds" while Joypad said the games had good quality graphics, the backgrounds were "not very detailed"." -> "Gamepro called the graphics "impressive" and highlighted the "detailed backgrounds". Joypad felt that the backgrounds lacked detail, but praised the graphics overall."
"The GB Action review said the background graphics gave "some feel to the locations" without obscuring the action and that the animation on the turtle characters was impressive while "bosses are bold and well animated" and difficult." -> "GB Action gave positive reviews to the boss and turtle animations, and described how the backgrounds gave "feel to the locations" without obscuring the gameplay."
"Various publications including GamePro, Joypad, Computer and Video Games and Weekly Famitsu commented on the maze-like structure of the game made it overtly challenging". -> "Several publications noted that the maze-like structure of the game was overtly challenging."
I think the previous comment is useful, but maybe belongs later in the paragraph. There are later parts of the paragraph where you discuss the level design. Start this paragraph with more general comments about the gameplay. (The second sentence of the paragraph can become the first.)
"Two reviewers in Weekly Famitsu wrote that considering the limited hardware abilities for the Game Boy, the gameplay was within expectations." -> "Weekly Famitsu wrote that gameplay met their expectations, considering the limitations of the Game Boy hardware."
"A reviewer in Mega Fun found that the level structure in the game was simple which led to a lack of variety in its level design. " -> "Mega Fun felt that the level design lacked variety due to its simplicity."
The more general comments about level design can go around here, too.
"In the The Incredible NMS Review Guide of the Year included with the December 1994 issue of Nintendo Magazine System, a reviewer found that despite the myriad of new abilities, the game had "little variety and practically zero originality" and that it "fails to live up to the quality of the very first Turtles title."" -> "The Nintendo Magazine System criticized the game for lacking the quality of the previous games, due to "little variety and practically zero originality"."
"Reviewers in Computer and Video Games and GamePro complimented the music" -> it's odd to decouple this from the later summary in the paragraph. Maybe re-organize this paragraph a little, to be more straightforward?
There are a lot of sentences where you start the sentence with two reviewers, and then pivot to a third review. I can see that maybe you're trying to bundle them together as all talking about one thing (e.g.: the music, the gameplay) But their opinions vary so much as to be multiple ideas jumbled together. I would avoid doing this unless the reviews were very similar so as to all reinforce a single idea per sentence. Otherwise, there is more gained by having them as separate, shorter sentences.
Retrospective reviews and legacy
This section needs a lot more organization in general. I'd suggest:
The legacy of the game's quality in general.
The legacy of the game in terms of the Game Boy standard of quality.
This could be combined with the last point, in terms of the game's quality in general. But I'd still effectively write them as two separate paragraphs, even if I ultimately merge them into one large paragraph with a transition in the middle.
The legacy of the game as a Turtles video game title.
The legacy of the game as an early metroidvania, and how it may have influenced Konami's production in general. (This is definitely a separate point from the game's quality in general.)
I think even the comment comparing it to Metroid should be here, as it implies a comparison of metroidvanias.
... that should work out to three or four paragraphs, depending on how the first two go.
It will be easier to clean up the prose once the paragraphs are organized more clearly.
We will probably need to do another pass on everything, the reception included. But can work on that once the body is stable enough to firm up the lead, too. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I was replying to individual messages, but accidentally closed the tab. Oops. I basically tried to do what you suggested. Some of your phrasing suggestions I'm kind of against as it either misquoted the magazine (i.e: comparing it to all the previous Turtle games when they only mention the one). I don't really like summarizing that it was well received or not as I'm only pulling from my own handful of material, so I tried to create a different opener. (i.e: the game was discussed in terms of this or that).
I re-did the legacy section. I didn't find that much for all those individual sections, but I tried to at least split it into a more "general retrospective reception" and a "influence and placement in video game history" kind of bits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The article has improved a lot. It's come a long way and it should be more stable from here on in. Let's take another look at where things stand, starting with the lead.
Lead
"1993 video game" -> "1993 action video game" (I realize the genre is complex but let's at least start with the most agreeable term. We can discuss which genre might fit better.)
Bit back and forth on this still as there was no constant genre and we have our own presumptions of what is a sub-genre of what. Might as well stick to what we have in the article and just use the more contemporary term "metroidvania". Even if it wasn't used at the time, the article goes into detail on that and as this seems to be the sticking name for these kind of games, I think this will probably suffice. I'm not 100% happy with this, but its probably the best course of action that satisfies guidelines for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"It was one of the many games made by Konami in the early 1990s based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) series." -> "Based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, ..." (shorter)
"In the game, the player can take control of four Ninja Turtle characters to explore a 2D maze-like environment, battle enemies, and rescue the various kidnapped companions." -> "... players control multiple Turtle characters as they battle enemies, rescue allies, and explore a non-linear maze-like environment." (cleaner and more readable)
"The game borrows plot elements, character design, and art styles from various forms of TMNT media of the era, such as the animated television series and the various comic series." - "Released during the height of TMNT's popularity in the early 1990s, Radical Rescue drew from various adaptations of the series, particularly the animated cartoon." (more concise, and also follows the sources that emphasize the cartoon over the comics)
Tried to combine this with the sentence above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"On the games release, various publications GamePro, Computer and Video Games and Weekly Famitsu that it was overly difficult due to its large maze-like gameplay. Other generally positive reviews from magazines like Total! found it a quality game, but did not offer players anything new in terms of gameplay." -> "Contemporary reviews praised its ambition and presentation, with some criticizing its difficulty and lack of innovation compared to previous games in the series." (We don't need to get into the weeds on individual sources)
I'm going to disagree again because this implies that there was a large overarching consensus, which we have no backing on outside the material editors can dig up. Its more accurate to what is in the article here to say who said what. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Retrospective reviews have described it as an early example of the Metroidvania genre, with the title featuring key gameplay elements and staff that would re-appear in Konami's Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997)." -> "In later years, it has been recognized as an early example of the Metroidvania genre, pioneering design elements popularized in Konami's later releases such as Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997)."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Background/plot
For the first section/sentence, I recommend saying the full title ("Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue") here. If the lead is meant to follow the body, we need to give it a body to follow.
Agreed. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
The game takes narrative and visual elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures comics and the first animated television series, and its toy line." -> "The third Turtles video game from Konami, it draws story and visual elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures comics, the first animated television series, and its toy line."
Despite the big "III" in the title, its the third Game boy game. But not the third game. Tried to re-phrase this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Say "is" instead of "was" for what the series is about. AFAIK it hasn't changed.
Think I was saying "was" as its no longer in print, but I guess it still exists so "is" is fine. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"After defeating Shredder, the Turtles are able to rescue April, who says that now that Shredder is gone, the world will finally be at peace." -> "They ultimately defeat Shredder, rescue April, and restore peace."
I feel like quoting April here is better and she just proclaims this, we don't really see an aftermath or anything. it just cuts to the credits. Very minor detail, but might as well go with that as being the narrative closure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay
I really think the first sentence of the gameplay section needs to be clearer. The sentences you have are good for clarifying more details. But we should try to say something clear, simple, and accurate. Maybe:
"Radical Rescue is a 2D side scrolling action game. Contemporary reviews have further described it as..."
Not sure what is unclear, but adding in genres that are not backed up applied to WP:WEIGHT doesn't really sound like a solution. Per the above message and my own write-up. We might as well stick with the more contemporary term. I'll drop these early and honestly very casually used genre analysis and lean heavier on the ones that go more into the detail of how the other genre fits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"The term was only began in to have popular use by video game journalists such as Jeremy Parish of 1up.com in the early 21st century.[21] The genre refers to two-dimensional platformer games that map out sprawling mazes in which players can progressively discover new abilities and evolve their player character over time.[24][25]" -> "The term became more popular in the 21st century, describing platformers where players unlock new abilities to traverse a maze-like level design." (Shorter. Two sentences starts to feel like too much of a tangent.)
Tidied it up a bit but basically applied this.  Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Development
The development section looks good. I would encourage you to look at the version of the article from before the GA and see if there's anything else from the "background" that would be here. But as is, it looks complete enough.
Thanks. From a quick glance, I don't think anything major is missing. If it it, I'll gladly re-add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"In the early 1990s, the popularity of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise was in a boom period." -> "In the early 1990s, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise experienced a major surge in popularity."
Definitely better. Dropped "major" as I feel like "surge in popularity" gets the point. (would one even say a minor surge? :) )Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"This included a TMNT line of action figures and a comic series by Archie Comics' series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures which ran from 1988 to 1995." -> "This included a TMNT action figure line and an Archie Comics series called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures, which ran from 1988 to 1995."
Slightly edited, but applied. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue was final part of a trilogy of games for Nintendo's Game Boy, which also included Fall of the Foot Clan (1990) and Back from the Sewers (1991)." -> "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue was Konami's final entry in a Game Boy trilogy, after Fall of the Foot Clan (1990) and Back from the Sewers (1991)."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"based off the style" -> "based on the style"
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Both the Japanese and English-language version of the game were included in the compilation Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Cowabunga Collection (2022)." -> "Both the Japanese and English-language versions of the game were included in the 2022 compilation Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Cowabunga Collection."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"The Japanese-language version has some gameplay differences, such as the map screen having more detailed icons." -> "The Japanese version features minor gameplay differences, such as more detailed icons on the map screen"
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Reception
The first sentence needs to do a better job summarizing the section. Even without a metacritic aggregation, it should be possible to bundle a few representative reviews and make a generalization.
I'm not sure how "The initial reviews of Radical Rescue discussed the game in terms of its graphics, level layout, music and overall quality compared to similar games." doesn't already do this. What specifically are you looking for? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"games graphics" -> "game's graphics"
"Two reviewers in Weekly Famitsu wrote that considering the limited hardware abilities for the Game Boy, the gameplay was within expectations." -> "Two reviewers in Weekly Famitsu wrote that the gameplay was within their expectations, considering the Game Boy's hardware limitations."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"The Nintendo Magazine System review said the game for lacking the quality of first Turtles title and had "little variety and practically zero originality". -> "The Nintendo Magazine System review criticized the game for lacking the quality of the first Turtles title, with "little variety and practically zero originality.""
Done. Slightly re-phrased, but mostly what you wrote. Wish I knew which title they were referring to here. (The Game boy one? the NES one? the arcade? who could say!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"The Game Players critic saying the..." -> "The Game Players critic wrote that the..."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Computer and Video Games and GamePro reviewers praised the game with the first publication saying that Radical Rescue "could soon be in the top five hand-held games of all time" and the latter saying "Game Boy carts don't get much better than this." -> Split this into two separate sentences. It's weird to introduce two reviews and then jump back and forth with two different quotes.
Attempting this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"MANIAC found it more interesting in gameplay terms than the preceeding TMNT video games." -> "MANIAC found the gameplay more engaging than previous TMNT video games."
"Other publications such as Video Games  [de], Total!, and GB Action were lukewarm," -> "Other publications were more mixed,"
They weren't really mixed, because that reads as they disagreed with each other. Lukewarm sort of implies a positive, if not entirely enthusastic review which I feel is more apt. The reviewers were basically just its good, playable, but we're sort of over it or similar musings. I try to establish this (see the comments and quote below) so people don't misunderstand this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
with Total! writing that it was "a highly playable and worthwhile platform romp, when it really comes down to it, it's not going to change the (gaming) world as we know it."[5] and GB Action concluding that it was "pleasant enough but dull in the 'we've seen it all before' mould." -> "with GB Action suggesting the game was "pleasant" but "we've seen it all before", while Total! declared the game as "highly playable" and "not going to change the world"."
Re-phrased again here slightly because your suggestions would directly change the quotes which is a definitely against guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
 Retrospective reviews
Good organization is key. I think you could organize this into two (sub) paragraphs: reviews about the game as a gameboy title, and reviews about the game as a metroidvania. If there are reviews that do both, you could either refer to them twice at different points in the paragraph, or find a good one to use as a transition in the middle, going from discussing it as a gameboy game to a metroidvania game )or vice versa).
It goes a bit hand in hand here. As the reviews acknolwedge it as a metroidvania, they sort of say how well it goes with it here (i.e: are the mazes too complex? what does it lack that later games did better?) There is less comments about graphics and other elements like before as that seemed to be a lot less key to the reviewers. I know the last Miller statement in the first pagraph talks about the graphics, but I tried to make the last paragraph sort of a catch all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Legacy
"Towards the mid-1990s, the TMNT experienced a downturn in popularity leading to no new video games to be released for the second half of the 1990s." -> "By the mid-1990s, the TMNT franchise experienced a decline in popularity, resulting in no new game releases for the rest of the decade."
Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Following the release of the TMNT television series in 2003, Konami released a few more new games for the franchise in the early 2000s, which Game Informer described as only having "a fraction of the success of the original titles from more than a decade ago."" -> "Following the 2003 release of the TMNT television series, Konami launched several new games in the early 2000s, which Game Informer described as achieving "only a fraction of the success of the original titles from more than a decade ago."
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorlie described Radical Rescue as "something of a milestone for Konami" as it was a "discovery of a genre" which they would take advantage of some years later in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997).-> "In a Hardcore Gamer 101 retrospective, Jesper Sorlie described Radical Rescue as a milestone for Konami because it pioneered the Metroidvania genre that they would eventually realize with Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997)." (this is a really important sentence to make clear)
Agreed. Changed to your suggestion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
"Christopher Totten and Adrian Sandoval, authors of World Design for 2D Action-Adventures (2025) described Radical Rescue as an "important step in the evolution of the Metroidvania", specifically due its redefined game loop of using an ability to explore an available environment, locating and defeating a boss, rescuing a character with a key and repeating said process." -> "Writing in World Design for 2D Action-Adventures (2025), authors Christopher Totten and Adrian Sandoval described Radical Rescue as "an important step in the evolution of the Metroidvania" and defining the genre's gameloop: using a new ability to explore the environment, finding and defeating a boss, rescuing a character with a key, and repeating this sequence."
" Staff members of Radical Rescue would later work on Symphony of the Night, including director Hiroyuki Fukui, who would be producer for the Castlevania game" -> "Several staff members from Radical Rescue would later work on Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, including director Hiroyuki Fukui, who served as a producer on the latter title."
" Both game's had a similar narrative set-up, which involved presenting a game as initially linear, until the arrival at a fortress when the game reveals itself to feature new non-linear exploration-based gameplay" -> "Both games share a similar structure, beginning with a seemingly linear level design before shifting to non-linear, exploration-based gameplay."
That's more than I expected. But it should be very close if we can get through these. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay! Got to it today on my day off. Sorry for re-writing here twice, but it was really slowing down on my end. I've made most of the changes. I'm sort of struggling to feel comfortable adding the "overall" statement from the reviews as they span from "one of the best" to "we're all a bit sick of this kind of stuff". So my ideas to satisfy this for the review is:
Open the "overall" part of reception with how it is (going over the key points)
Open up with the more "overall statements" i.e: Reviews ranged from [one that says its among the best] to others saying it was more middle-ground.
My only other question, as its not a real word, but not a proper-noun, I'm not sure if "Metroidvania" should have a capital M. I know the M comes from a game title Metroid, but genres aren't proper nouns. Maybe something I should ask WP:VG...or some other grammar-interested wikiproject? I've seen spelled with both ways in articles about the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Scratching out my last question. Going to follow MOS:GENRECAPS and MOS:PROPERNAME here as I think they apply. Feels a bit off to me, but perhaps I'm just not used to it yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
We are within distance of the finish line. A few last few notes before we wrap this up, mainly around the lead and the reception:
It is a good question whether metroidvania should be capitalized. I don't know. I have seen lower case but I defer to you in this case.
On my own personal take, I see it as being better as lower case, but guidelines seem to suggest capital M is the way to go. Looking in how its used in the sources, it varies as a relatively even split between a capital M and not using it. I'll leave it as "M" instead of "m" for now until someone more familiar with these things can clear it up for us. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I think we could do a better job summarizing the reception. Avoid focusing on any specific publication. Something like:
"Upon its release, Radical Rescue received praise from game journalists for its graphics, with some critics divided on its originality, difficulty, and gameplay depth."
I'd still a bit torn by this, I know we see reviews saying "Multiple reviews said _____" but the sources don't say multiple reviews said "graphics were good", each citation can only state their own review. I presume you mean this in the lead, so I've tried to shorten it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
"In later years" -> "Years later,"
"As Michelangelo begins to rescue the Turtles, they find that their Master Splinter has been captured and that the pit of the mines main base of the Shredder" -> incomplete sentence at the end
Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The gameplay section does have a clearer topic sentence now, which is good. Even if "metroidvania" is a retrospective term.
See below comment Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should erase the contemporary sources in terms of its genre. You should reintroduce a sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "At the time of its release, publications variously called the game an action game, platform game..."
I can do that, but I feel like it fits better earlier on, as I kind of like to start with the beginning and move forward, but its not issue.Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
There is an awkward paragraph break at the start of the Development section. Just turn it into a single paragraph. (Or add a break when you say "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue was Konami's final entry in their Game Boy trilogy...")
There's a few times where you jump back and forth between reviews, saying "X and Y noted something, with X saying this, and Y saying that." It's sort of an awkward construction and would be clearer if it were simplified.
"Game Players and Joypad found the gameplay fresh for the series, with the writer in the former magazine saying "You've got to admire Konami for not dipping into the same old well every time — the Turtles were ready for a make-over, and players will be satisfied with the results."" -> "Joypad found the gameplay fresh for the series, while Game Players stated that "You've got to admire Konami for not dipping into the same old well every time — the Turtles were ready for a make-over, and players will be satisfied with the results."
"Other publications such as Maniac  [de], Mega Fun  [de], and Total! found the game lacking in surprise or innovative features" -> full stop
"GB Action wrote that the game was "not outstandingly original" and "perhaps expecting a spark of originality from a Turtles game is wishful thinking"
"Other publications such as Video Games  [de], Total!, and GB Action were lukewarm," -> full stop. (The other sentences in the paragraph can start more cleanly.)
"while Total! declared the game as "highly playable and worthwhile", but that it was not "going to change the (gaming) world as we know it."" -> "while Total! declared the game as "highly playable" but "not going to change the world".
You have GB Action and Total! here twice, and don't need both.
" Two reviewers in Weekly Famitsu wrote that considering the limited hardware abilities for the Game Boy, the gameplay was within expectations" -> "Two reviewers in Weekly Famitsu wrote that the gameplay met their expectations considering the limitations of the Game Boy hardware"
That should get us all the way there. Thanks again for your work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Just keeping an eye on this one. I see you still working through it, so just reply once you've reached a point. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Yes. I think I want to be able to have a moment to really focus on the reception to make it properly satisfying for both of us. I've been doing tiny edits here and there, but I know this section will be a bit more time sensitive and focus-oriented. I'm predicting Friday, but if not then, I'll get back to you that day to fill you in on where I'm at. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That sounds good and take your time. Other than the remaining notes above, the last big issue right now would be the first sentence of the reviews, which should be a summary sentence. I realize this is tricky without an aggregator like metacritic, but this is typical for older games. I want to point you to featured articles about classic games such as Anachronox#Reception, Alleyway_(video_game)#Reception, Zork#Reviews, and Phantasmagoria_(video_game)#Reviews. Following that precedent, it would be fine to say "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Radical Rescue received _____ reviews" or even "... received a combination of positive and mixed reviews". But if you wanted to be more specific, you could say it "... received positive reviews for its graphics, with more mixed reviews for its difficulty and originality." The sources do support it if you use multiple citations. This kind of summary sentence is really important to introduce the section, and becomes a  highly useful foundation for the lead. (A similar sentence would be needed for the retrospective reviews section.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey hey. Got a bit distracted this friday and will try to take a look at it this weekend. Appreciate the heads up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I apologize for the delay again. It's been a a busy few weeks & weekends. I'll try to tackle this after work today. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate your patience with this. I was going to attempt a grander write-up of the reception, but I'm going to accept I'm not able to do that. I've tried to re-phrase the opening again. Again, despite those featured articles, I don't believe its appropriate to give a summary if we have no discussion of such. I've tried to suggest what you've said while still maintaining what is in the sources. I.e: some publications considered it the best of the system or hand-helds in general, others were more luke-warm. I've made your other corrections as well with leaving in the longer sentence from Total! because re-phrasing it would be re-phrasing what is published in the magazine. Thoughts @Shooterwalker:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
It's always hard to summarize a game's reception without an aggregater like Metacritic, but I think you've arrived at something that works. You've done a good job of avoiding WP:SYNTH, while still giving a good overview. Let's just clean these up to for flow and readability, and to ensure a stronger connection between the lead and body.
Body:
Reviews ranged from Computer and Video Games and GamePro considering it one of the best games for the Game Boy or hand-held devices, other publications such as Video Games  [de], Total!, and GB Action were lukewarm." -> "Upon release, Radical Rescue was considered one of the best Game Boy titles according to Computer and Video Games and GamePro, while other reviewers such as Video Games  [de], Total!, and GB Action were lukewarm."
See if you can insert references to those sources in that sentence.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
"The initial reviews of Radical Rescue discussed the game in terms of its graphics, level layout, music and overall quality compared to similar games." -> We can cut this. (It's obvious/redundant.)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The final paragraph is a good summary paragraph. To improve the flow, let's swap it with the more specific feedback about the graphics.
Last paragraph becomes first paragraph (right after the summary sentence)
"The Computer and Video Games reviewer praised Radical Rescue ... ... ... and GB Action concluding that it was "pleasant enough but dull in the "we've seen it all before" mould." comes right after the opening sentence
Graphics sub-paragraph joins the later music paragraph.
("Reviews from GamePro, Joypad and GB Action complimented the game's graphics. GB Action reviewers said the backgrounds gave "some feel to the locations" without obscuring the gameplay. The publication complimented the animated sprites of the boss and turtle characters.")
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Lead:
"On the games release, some publications said that it was overly difficult due to its large maze-like gameplay. Other generally positive reviews found it a quality game did not offer players anything new in terms of gameplay." -> "On the games release, some publications praised the game as one of the best games for the Game Boy, while others criticized the game's difficulty and lack of originality." (closer to the body)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
That should more or less wrap it up. Thanks for your hard work and patience. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas:tagging you as a heads up! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker and Andrzejbanas:I am going to help with the finishing touches of the article so it can be promoted to GA later today. I hope you guys do not mind lending my hand for help. Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:All inquiries have been met. Let us know what else needs to be done on the article! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@KGRAMR:, thanks for the good work! I kept wanting to do this but kept either getting distracted or felt I needed a break from reading about these damn turtles! I've made one last tweak to your edits but otherwise approve of what you've done. Thanks for taking the initiative. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and patience. Things have been busy all around, and I'm going to look at it as soon as possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Just found time to review and it looks great. I made one last small tweak to improve the organization of the reception section. Thanks again for putting in so much time. Happy to give this a pass as a GA, and it could even turn into a FA whenever you're less sick of these damn turtles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)