Games are recommended on a four-point scale like those "strongly agree/disagree" questions you get on surveys. This scale goes "Strongly", "If you like this kinda game", "Watch it online", and "Avoid at all costs" from best to worst. It's one part how likely I am to replay the game and one part how likely I am to recommend it to fans of that game's genre. I'm not in the business of objectivity, just what's fun to me. No reason to play a game if you're not having fun, yeah?

[#] Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (EA Games, 2002)

The first Harry Potter game on PS1 left a lot to be desired with its wonky controls, limited exploration, and linearity. The PS1 was still marginally relevant in 2002, so Argonaut were contracted to produce its follow-up using the same engine. That's the bad news. The models and gameplay are reused wholesale where applicable, and Harry still handles like he's on ice a lot of the time. The good news? There's a lot more to see here, with a much bigger castle of secrets and a wider breadth of minigames.

While the first one had a few minigames, this one expands the lot with gnome-throwing, flying car racing, first-person shooting galleries, and my personal favorite, wizard duels. These play like real-time Pokémon battles, Harry and another wizard casting spells at one another, trying to coax the other into shooting charmed objects to gain special jinxes. It's highly satisfying. I wish they gave us a duel gauntlet to play through instead of the Quidditch League, because these are over far too soon.

Aside from the rather irritatingly difficult slide segments, Argonaut mercifully built the environments to better suit the controls this time around, so you'll breeze through without much frustration. I'm especially glad they actually let us replay earlier parts of the game, something Sorcerer's Stone did not let you do, astoundingly. Secrets isn't perfect, but it's a pretty damn fun romp through a kids book and I think it's worth a reappraisal. Potter fans especially take notice.