[Ginkasa]

If I were to decide to care about the Zelda timeline I would probably say something like,

"I don't really mind the idea that there are three timelines, but I hate the justification for that third timeline. Link dies/fails? There's not really any way to play the series 'in order' with that kind of reasoning. If there were legitimate, multiple endings in OoT (as in, you get a different ending based on how you played, etc.) and the various games shot off from those different endings (including a legit ending to your game where Link failed) I wouldn't mind. That actually sounds kind of cool. But the only way to really 'play' this is to intentionally lose in OoT and say, 'Well, I'm off to ALttp.' Its dumb and random and I don't like it.

I think I better justification for a third timeline would be similar to the pre-existing 'Adult' and 'Child' timelines that were created after Zelda sent Link back in time at the end of OoT. For the uninitiated, the 'Adult' timeline shoots off from the ending with the adult Zelda where Ganon was defeated by Link in mighty battle over Ganon's crushed castle. The 'Child' timeline is created after Link was returned to his childhood where, theoretically, he somehow warned everyone about about Ganondorf and prevented him from getting the Triforce (at least, at that point in time).

This third timeline would be based off of the point prior to when Link became an adult. I.e. he picked up the Master Sword, zoomed forward 7 years, and (with the exception of returning for the Spirit Temple and going underneath a well) never came back. In this instance, Ganon did succeed because he got the Triforce and Link was no longer around to save the day. If you try to apply logic to time travel, which you should never do, you could argue that this is still the 'Adult' timeline and Link would just show up again in seven years? My response? Shut up, it makes more sense than 'Link dies.'"

Anyway, I stopped caring about the Zelda timeline a while ago so there's no way I would say that now.