User Reviews

Fun game to play, but there were a few problems. J W (107) 4.43 Stars4.43 Stars4.43 Stars4.43 Stars4.43 Stars

Our Users Say

Category Description User Score
Acting The quality of the actors' performances in the game (including voice acting). 2.7
Gameplay How well the game mechanics work (player controls, game action, interface, etc.) 2.9
Graphics The quality of the art, or the quality/speed of the drawing routines 2.7
Personal Slant How much you personally like the game, regardless of other attributes 2.7
Sound / Music The quality of the sound effects and/or music composition 2.9
Story / Presentation The main creative ideas in the game and how well they're executed 2.7
Overall User Score (7 votes) 2.8

Critic Reviews

MobyRanks are listed below. You can read here for more information about MobyRank.
GamePro (US) (Dec 10, 2003)
Wait - didn't this game come out already? Yes, but that apparently hasn't stopped EA from releasing a new version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the PlayStation 2. Why? Um because it's the holidays and there's money to be made.
67 (Dec 31, 2003)
Der spielerische Rückblick auf das erste Jahr von Harry Potter in Hogwarts präsentiert sich in allen Belangen schwächer als die von Eurocom entwickelte Umsetzung zur Schreckenskammer. Zwar bemüht man sich, die im letzten Jahr erfolgreiche Gameplaymischung aus Erforschen, Kämpfen und Rätseln zu replizieren, doch die Umsetzung ist nur mäßig gelungen und bleibt deutlich hinter den Erwartungen zurück. Kameraprobleme und Ruckler in allen Fassungen zeigen zudem grafische Schwächen auf, die es in dieser Form letztes Jahr nur selten gab. Überhaupt bleibt Harrys Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen grafisch unerklärlicherweise deutlich hinter der Spieladaption zum zweiten Film zurück. Deshalb: nur für eingefleischte Hardcore-Potter-Fans empfehlenswert, die statt des Buches oder der Zelluloidumsetzung selber Hand an das Schicksal des Zauberlehrlings legen möchten. Wer unbedingt ein Harry Potter-Spiel im Archiv braucht, ist mit der Kammer des Schreckens wesentlich besser bedient.
65 (Dec 11, 2003)
Légère perte de vitesse pour Harry Potter qui se contente de combler un vide dans la ludothèque des consoles 128 bits sans pour autant égaler l'épisode sorti l'année passée. La recette n'est pas nouvelle mais elle est gâchée par une réalisation décevante et un gameplay défaillant qui n'incitent pas à aller de l'avant. Espérons que l'adaptation du troisième livre saura mettre la barre un peu plus haut.
Worth Playing (Mar 02, 2004)
The Harry Potter franchise is huge. It's busting at the seams with profitability and everything the young wizard touches seems to turn into gold for everyone involved with the production. The videogame aspect of the equation is no exception. It's apparent from the number of units sold and the surprisingly good reviews it received that last year's multiconsole Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was a smash hit. After the success of Chamber of Secrets, it would seem only logical to have a quickly-made/high-profit-potential, financially low-risk prequel produced. Unfortunately, Sorcerer's Stone does not meet the standard of Harry Potter games that was set in Chamber of Secrets.
IGN (Dec 09, 2003)
Rarely has there been a better book-to-movie-to-videogame franchise than Harry Potter. The magic and mystery coated series, created by now-gazillionaire J.K. Rowling, sold in the millions on paper, delighted millions on the silver screen and, thanks to Electronic Arts, achieved mainstream success on the digital front, too.
GameZone (Dec 26, 2003)
Not waiting for another publisher to beat 'em to the punch, Electronic Arts quickly swooped in and obtained the license necessary to make Harry Potter video games. Several Potter games have been released on all of the platforms, from PSone and Game Boy Advance to the PC and PlayStation 2. I never got the chance to try out the previous adventures, so I was glad to get my hands on the latest chapter in the series.
GameSpot (Dec 22, 2003)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is an unremarkable game that diehard fans may enjoy, but it's one that casual gamers and Potter fans may want to think twice about picking up.
Rehashing Potter’s first year of Hogwart’s is starting to wear me out. The book, the movie, the first time that this game came out…. Purportedly, the team set out to upgrade the graphics and the gameplay of Sorcerer’s Stone on PSone. What they put out was a slightly less painful version of the earlier, incredibly painful version.
GameSpy (Dec 30, 2003)
So what's the Harry Potter fan to do while waiting for the next 900-page Potter book or six-hour Potter flick? The wizard-loving gamer could sit back and fire-up EA's new Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It's an overhauled take on the PSOne and PC title from 2001, and reintroduces us to Harry and the rest of the Hogwarts crew as they plow through their first year of wizardry school. The Potter-phile may overlook a lot of the game's troubles, but most gamers will want to do their spell-casting elsewhere.
Game Revolution (Jan, 2004)
Until then, I have trouble recommending this Potter to anyone. I find the (accidental?) high difficulty level in some parts of Harry Potter refreshing, but the game clearly isn’t directed at 20-somethings. And, 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. Hmm, some kids like boogers..