Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone PlayStation 2
  • Publisher: EA Games
  • Release Date: Dec 9, 2003
  • Also On: PC
Metascore
56 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 14
  3. Negative: 4 out of 14
view
per page
  1. PSM Magazine
    70
    It does feel a bit short, and some elements of the story are poorly told. But as simple, fundamental platform gaming, it's pleasant enough, and Harry's target lock is really very good. [Jan 2004, p.37]
    All this publication's reviews
  2. GamePro
    70
    But the core still involves lots of non-skippable cinematic sequences, a fidgety camera (and finicky controls), overearnest voice acting, and tepid platform-style action (any game where the first true action sequence takes place in a room full of crates set up for jumping puzzles is trouble).
  3. GameZone
    64
    Two words keep this from being a great-playing game: menial tasks. The puzzles aren't clever, they're just silly, and oftentimes confusing because of the clunky controls and the sub-par camera.
  4. Next Level Gaming
    64
    Music and sounds are solid, but Harry Potters voice is like a cheese grater on the brain.
  5. Worth Playing
    64
    Drastically inferior compared to the one-year old "Chamber of Secrets."
  6. GameSpot
    61
    A weak follow-up to Chamber of Secrets that seems like an awkward fit for anyone who already owns last year's game.
  7. GMR Magazine
    60
    Isn't a remake of the PS1 game of the same name, but rather a conceptually similar reimagining. [Jan 2004, p.68]
    All this publication's reviews
  8. GameSpy
    60
    When you're not being underwhelmed by Sorcerer's Stone, you'll be infuriated by it.
  9. G4 TV
    60
    Harmlessly addictive, if not wholly derivative. But it's great for the kids, and offers a satisfying, officially licensed Harry Potter experience.
  10. Game Informer
    50
    Unless you're six years old and a mad Potter fan (who didn't play this game on PSone), don't go anywhere near this one. [Jan 2004, p.134]
  11. IGN
    48
    The 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.
  12. Computer and Video Games
    40
    Running around Hogwarts is a curiously flat experience, and not helped by the chronically jerky frame rate.
  13. Game Revolution
    33
    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.
  14. Official U.S. Playstation Magazine
    30
    But most unbelievable is the fact that there's almost nothing here I would classify as fun. [Jan 2004, p.118]
    All this publication's reviews
prev next
Page:
  • 1

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.9 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 9
  3. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. Starfighters76
    5
    ****
  2. LizzlieH.
    10
    Even though I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, it was a really great game, surprisenly! lolz! Yes, the graphics and camera angles may be.......nasty at times, but still! The quests are wonderful! Though the potion ingrediants were hard to find. oh well! But if I were to give a description of it, I would say, two thumbs way up! BUY THIS GAME!… Full Review »
  3. CourtneyP.
    8
    I like this game a lot but the camera is really bad.
See all user reviews »