- Publisher: EA Games
- Release Date: Dec 9, 2003
- Also On: PC, PlayStation 2
- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
Extends parts of the original story (a training session in Ollivanders Wand Shop) and skips over others (the Sorting Hat ceremony). [Feb 2004, p.149]
-
Think of it as Zelda-lite and you won't go far wrong.
-
70The puzzles and tasks get a little repetivite in this sequel, and the overall gameplay isn't quite as fun as before. The camera control is definitely worse, and can get quite irritating at times.
-
Obviously aimed at younger gamers, it’s very lineair and never too difficult. For Harry Potter fans it’s a good buy, it’s filled with good voicework and little details from the books and movies.
-
66Too much repetition, too many boring cut scenes and lack of variety make this game a very average playing experience.
-
Music and sounds are solid, but Harry Potters voice is like a cheese grater on the brain.
-
64The story is the most dated, the art assets re-used, and gameplay mechanics re-used, and all with a serious hit in graphic quality, a truth that really disappoints.
-
61The game, with its remixed story line, random objectives, and Zelda-esque gameplay isn’t enough to keep newcomers to the series interested.
-
61The actual execution, unfortunately, doesn't live up to the standards of Chamber of Secrets and ends up being a lackluster game that never quite comes together.
-
60When you're not being underwhelmed by Sorcerer's Stone, you'll be infuriated by it.
-
Other than a couple isolated bits HP and the SS is a mess. And I didn’t play crap like this when I was a kid, at least not for long. I played Sonic. So there ya have it: Harry Potter is better than a Vomit flavored bean, but a little worse than Grass, and on a level with Booger.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 0 out of 1
-
Mixed: 0 out of 1
-
Negative: 1 out of 1
-
MickeyMouse1Horrible. Failed attempt to enrich the Harry Potter engine. Horrible.