Join our Discord to chat with fellow friendly gamers and our knowledgeable contributors!

User Reviews

There are no reviews for the Xbox release of this game. You can use the links below to write your own review or read reviews for the other platforms of this game.

Our Users Say

Category Description User Score
Acting The quality of the actors' performances in the game (including voice acting). 2.9
Gameplay How well the game mechanics work (player controls, game action, interface, etc.) 2.7
Graphics The quality of the art, or the quality/speed of the drawing routines 3.1
Personal Slant How much you personally like the game, regardless of other attributes 3.0
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
(required for every game entry that isn't a compilation or special edition)
Overall User Score (7 votes) 3.0

Critic Reviews

MobyRanks are listed below. You can read here for more information about MobyRank.
GamerDad (May 13, 2004)
It's Harry Potter. It's true to the books, true to the films, and challenging enough to keep youngsters (and their Muggle parents) occupied for hours. Plus, Harry faints instead of dying. That's a potent combination that's easy to recommend.
GameZone (Dec 21, 2003)
Overall a very solid, fun game that does justice to the license, which is an accomplishment in and of itself. It’s a great way for those that want a more proactive way to experience the story and movie.
70 (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.
Next Level Gaming (Dec 25, 2003)
It seems that kids still love the Harry Potter franchise (although I think it is starting to lose its steam). So you know that the parents are going to go out and fork out the bucks for their kids. But if you are a gamer in your twenties, like myself then you might want to look elsewhere for your gaming goodness. The game is somewhat dragged out at times and becomes kind of boring. Normally when you buy a game and play the hell out of it, you are playing to achieve a goal and to get something that will make everything worth your while. I did not see that in this game. The graphics are pretty good, but I have seen so much better on these platforms (Prince of Persia for one).
IGN (Dec 09, 2003)
As someone who's read all of the Potter books and watched all of the movies, I have to admit that I'm not nearly as impressed with EA's adaptation of The Sorcerer's Stone as I was with the job it did with Chamber of Secrets. This Warthog-developed prequel in many ways feels like the digital equivalent of a Ron Weasley hand-me-down. 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. Worst of all, the game's general lack of polish also means that it's buggy and sometimes employs questionable character artificial intelligence.
GameSpot (Dec 22, 2003)
Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a weak follow-up to Chamber of Secrets that seems like an awkward fit for anyone who already owns last year's game. While fans may enjoy the chance to relive Harry's first adventure in a proper action adventure game, the gameplay and graphical performance of Sorcerer's Stone doesn't differ much from Chamber of Secrets, and the game itself doesn't offer any dramatic improvements to make it a must-have. In the end 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.
GameSpy (Dec 30, 2003)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone's saving grace is the characters. Yes, a lot of the gameplay is boring and clunky, but through books and movies we've come to think of Harry and crew as friends, so the true fan will be able to look past a lot of the game's quirks and have a relatively decent experience. If you're new to the whole Potter phenomenon, you may want to use the books, films, or last year's Chamber of Secrets as your point of introduction.
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..