Most people know Zelda II as the Zelda game that no one really liked. It was very different from its predecessor, and lots of people were thrown by it. Instead of the top-down style, it was a mix of the classic RPG walking over scenery mixed with short side-scrolling battle zones. The addition of magic was also a large deviation. After this game, all the other Zelda games, except Four Swords, have been the same style. I think that after seeing the reaction to the changes in the second game, they decided that the first style was better. I love the games, and I'm personally glad they didn't keep the Zelda II look, but it probably played an important role in cementing the style of all the other games that we know and love.

What do you think?

I think it was a mistake but also a learning experience. I prefer the top down as well but I did enjoy the rpg elements when you upgraded your attack/magic/life. The one thing that really annoyed me(besides the stupid giant wall area right before the final castle) was human error. Whenever I'd put the crystal in the pedestal, I'd go back through the castle to exit it before I realized that you could just go out if you walked past the pedestal to the right.....:/

Zelda II isn't a mistake. It was a good, (but not very repeatable) formula for a game, It is one of my more favorite games, because of the difficulty and the hardcore feel to it.  It was only the second release for the series, It was a step in the right direction. Ocarina of Time repeats this formula slightly with the the battle system because you are locked in a battle when you use Z targeting like when you ran into an enemy in Zelda II. So no, It was not a mistake, it was a learning experience, but not in the way you stated.

I didn't mind the side scrolling, honestly. I thought it made some areas and fights a bit more enjoyable, but then again, this is less of an opinion thread.

Yeah, if anything, that's probably the case, just a learning experience. From what I know, it happens a lot of the time, rather than others having the "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality. It at least makes things a bit interesting, Nya~.

Zelda 2 sucked. Honestly the game was hard and every thing about it just sucked. The first Zelda was by far better and plus it was easier too. 

I never really played the game, but I've seen a few others play it (and even some people speedrunning it). Seems like a good game to me. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Haha, I find it funny how you said "Most people know that Zelda II as the Zelda game that nobody liked", yet all who posted in this thread except for 1 person said they actually really liked it. Just saying it made me chuckle. 

As for my opinion, I am on the majority side (of this thread, I mean). I really Liked Zelda II. The thing is, if it didn't have the Zelda title to it, people probably would have really liked it. It suffered the Mario Bros II complex in that it shared a spot in a franchise, and people hated it because it wasn't the same concept they were expecting. Both good games if you take out the franchise name (and the characters (although to do that with SMB2, just play Doki Doki Panic )), and you can play the game without the predecessor stuck in your head and realize they are pretty good.  But I guess the only real mistake Zelda II made was not realizing that there are too many kids out there who automatically say "bad game" just because it is "too hard". I personally liked the challenge. 

I'll swing the vote back to the "Zelda 2 sucks" group. I didn't like the game personally. I thought it deviated too much from the original to really be the same game. Change a couple names and it could have been any other game. There are plenty of games that followed similar formulas in their 2nd release and didn't deviate too much but still produced a new, quality game.