The Codex Zelda

[Shrikeswind]

I'm not sure where to put this, to be honest. Though fan theories abound, the Codex doesn't serve as a fan theory at all, as one of the many purposes of the Codex is to rationalize or debunk fan theories by providing evidence for and against them. This covers the entire series, so that makes it tricky to determine whether to call it contemporary or classic. Though cameos are referred to, it's not a cameo listing. And this is my project, so unless Fry decides "Hey, this is cool," this isn't going to be a feature for NinDB. So I do anticipate a move for the Codex.

So, what IS the Codex? Well, I've taken it upon myself to research the various legends of Hyrule, from 1987 to now, 23 years later. Included are a Bestiary, which will teach of the monsters we've grown "fond" of; an Atlas, showing the maps of all the worlds; a timeline to plot known events and several possibilities for the challenging events, such as the first 4 games; a music book for the series' soundtrack; a character index; and the Codex specialty, the item tracer, following the various items, weapons, and objects throughout the Zelda series.

The first game on my list? The basis for every 3D Zelda game and the apparent beginning of the story, Ocarina of Time. Currently, the Codex is being written, and so as time progresses, the Codex will be expanded on, but will be done in a continued style as though they were being released as I write it out. To start will be the very beginning of the Hero of Time's story, from the Title Screen to the death of the Great Deku Tree. I'll start on the Codex shortly.

[Manspeed]

Say, you could've put this in my Fanon thread back in the Fanstuff board. I made it for this kind of thing. Either that or you could have this thread moved there.

[Shrikeswind]

The problem I saw was that the Codex is more like an encyclopedia crossed with a storybook, telling the stories and at the same time creating a repository of information on the Zelda series. It was intended for canon, not fanon, though it may be used to piece together a fanon, which is what made me decide to put it here: It's not fanon, but a compilation of canon facts, though with an understanding of the fact that fanon is, at times, necessary. So all in all, I'm not sure if it belongs there. If a mod feels my description of intent makes it fanon, they may move it there, but I'd like moderative jurisdiction on where it belongs.

[wanderingshadow]

The Codex Zelda says like a real cool idea. If I might make a suggestion, it'd be really cool if you named the different sections after books from the series or maybe say that some of the stuff are fragments from those books. For example, A History of Masks could be part of the Item section, A Hyrulean Bestiary would be perfect for the enemies, Book of Mudora could be history, ect.

Also, I've got a bit of information for you. Maybe this is old, but I've never seen it and it blew my mind. The first five dungeons of Legend of Zelda spell out "ZELDA". Here's a picture.

[Fryguy64]

To be honest with you... You're calling it a "Codex", but it sounds like you're writing up all the content for a website without actually calling it a website

So the idea is that you will catalogue everything, and then if someone comes up with a theory regarding the order of the games, the codex will cough up a list of things that disagree with that theory?

If I were in your shoes, I would create strong, medium and weak counter-argument categories. For example, a counterargument that totally blows a theory out of the water would be a strong argument, while a counterargument that is palpably true (such as the locations of elements on the world map) is clearly a weak argument, as the gameplay will always come before the story.

Sounds like an interesting idea though. Good luck with it

[Shrikeswind]

It's going to be a website, yes. I just call it "the Codex" because it's easier to say that than to say "the Codex site." Plus it gets the point across.

With regards to theories and debunkments, it's not actually going to be that I scour the Internet looking for new theories to prove wrong or anything. I'm just going to point out that elements that have changed for the sake of gameplay (such as locations of elements on the world map) is not a strong argument for a theory. I'm not going to say "This theory cannot be true because of this," it's simply going to provide facts that would either fit in with a theory or that would debunk it.

Also, wanderingshadow, I thought about that, but decided against it for sake of clarity. If someone stumbles upon the Codex Zelda and has never played Zelda before, if I used that sort of thing it'd confuse them, but if I just say, for example, "History," they can more easily figure out "Okay, so this is the story is here," while calling it the "Book of Mudora," they'd be "Book of Muh-door-ay? What the hell?"

I've heard about the ZELDA dungeons, actually, but it's actually an anagram, if you go in the Level 1-Level 2-Level 3 order. It will be noted regardless.

[mrmolecule]

Someone actually tried to write a history of Zelda called Book of Mudora. It's woefully out of date and has possible plot holes.

[Shrikeswind]

FUCK, THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME! I had COMPLETELY forgotten the Codex in all my other projects which will likely never pan out (excepting for one, but that's another story.) Lucky me, I never date my work.

[Fryguy64]

The Missing Link, who wrote the Book of Mudora, was one of my old VGF buddies (I used to be the main admin of the NintendoLand Pokemon forum over there... before breaking away to start NinDB). But it doesn't look like anyone has worked on it for many years.