It makes very little sense for a dedicated timeline to appear just because Link happens to die in one game . When you get a game over , it ' s not considered a canon event in the game ' s story , is it ? That ' s completely illogical . It ' s gameplaystory segregation . Nowhere in OoT ' s lore or any of the following games ' lore does it suggest that Link dies at some point before he has the chance to defeat Ganondorf and save Hyrule . Um . So ? The hero ' s defeat timeline stems from a possibility . There could be a Link took 5 minutes too long to leave kokiri forest timeline if they wanted there to be . Nintendo ' s introduction of a third timeline based on the possibility that the player might get a game over while playing Ocarina of Time introduces a very poor precedent , in which the possibility of getting a game over in literally any Zelda game has the potential to create another timeline . No . it doesn ' t do that . Are you serious ? The hero defeat timeline is not oh gosh the player got a game over ! . It ' s This is a timeline wherein Link failed , absolutely , and died , as a matter of plot . And yes , there is a possibility any game could be This is after X game , but Link died instead of winning . There ' s nothing wrong with that . It retcons absolutely nothing , and its not an illogical branch . That ' s . kind of the point of a timeline , dude . There could be a Zelda didn ' t give a shit about Ganondorf timeline if they wanted there to be . There could be a The King decided that Zelda was overstepping her bounds as an 8 year old kid to denounce a foreign dignitary timeline where he locks her in a tower . If anything , The final battle did not go as planned is the most logical route to go with an alternate split .