Another attempt at a Sorcerer's Stone game has resulted in another epic failure. Year two is better in every way.
The Bad: The graphics are worse than Chamber of Secrets, which was released a year before it, and are now genuinely poor; the game's pace is very slow; many little clips of Harry opening chests and doors take way too long; your game will probably freeze at some point; you don't get nearly enough spells; the spells aren't even vaguely pretty; the characters bug eyes and facial expressions look insanely stupid; copying Zelda was a misfire in the first place, and it's more blatant this time around.
The first thing you'll think after playing Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Chamber of Secrets, for that matter), is that you just played a bad rip-off of Zelda. Even if you love the boy wizard, and I do, you'll know that you would've had more fun playing a Zelda game.
The games faulty camera work, misplaced control scheme (thought it's not particularly bad), and the general sense of boredom involved really kill much of the excitement of being the kid with the funny scar and glasses.
That's not to say the game is all bad. The broomstick controls are responsive but underused and the music is still solid, as is the voice acting. But again teachers send you through spell challenges to get new attacks, which makes no sense in the context of a school. You'd think that the areas with actual action in the books and movies would just have more expansive battles and allow for easier spell learning, but the game tries too hard to be Zelda and forgets that the point of a game is to be fun.
The game is short, although this might be a good thing, but the Wizard card collection is perhaps worth the time. Generally, things like this balance out to make just a so-so game. The graphics really are pretty bad, but some effects look kinda cool. Ron and Hermione get in your way and nag you a lot, making you wonder why Harry's there friend, and about half the spells are actually from the books (Spongify? Flipendo?), but boss battles can be pretty enjoyable.
In the end, original elements (not Zelda copied and pasted into Hogwarts) and scenes straight from the books end up the most pleasurable experience. It's odd that I'm saying that being a huge Zelda fan, but if there's a way for Harry Potter to be designed, it's not to copy Zelda. Link's items are all fun and extremely different from each other, but Harry uses basically one spell as an attack and all the others to solve puzzles that just don't fit. It's not as if Zelda can't be copied; look at Okami. That game turned out as good as many Zelda games.
Harry's destiny is originality and more immersive battling and puzzles. Copying people is something the Harry Potter books didn't do, and neither should the games if a title worth your time is to be made by EA.
So no, it's not worth your time, especially now. That is, unless you're such a hardcore Harry Potter fan that you need a game based on every movie. In that case knock yourself out, but again, if you want an adventure game, Zelda and Okami are much better choices in literally every way.