Guess Who With The Electric Chair: Fingered Released


Guess Who? may not have the awe and admiration of the tabletop gaming world, but I maintain that the clacking of a card being ruled out and flipped down is one of gaming’s most delightful sounds and sensations. Fingered [official site] is also about peering at suspects and whittling them down based on their appearance, though given that it’s about police ID lineups and Edmund McMillen (him off Super Meat Boy and The Binding of Isaac) is involved, it’s obviously a little darker.

Having been announced only last week, Fingered was released this week at the friendly price of £1.59. I’ve played a bit and, sure, it’s fun.

Fingered is a game about police lineups, where suspects filter in and you must follow clues from witnesses to figure out who they’re talking about.

“I’m positive he looked rich,” they might say – look out for folks with watches, rings, and crowns. “I’m positive he looked tall” – that’s easy enough. “I think he looked a tad large” – ah, that’s more of a problem. Later lineups introduce more uncertainty and people who’ll pull funny tricks like say the opposite of what they mean, taking more thought to finger the right guy.

And when you finger them? It’s time for the sit-down dance at Sing Sing. What a cruel society this is.

This isn’t a review or nothing, but I’ve enjoyed puzzling over lineups and looking up my chums in the crime database. Its people are procedurally generated, see, and has a database that’ll show you what you and your mates look like. I thought Cara would be more impressed, given how cool her crime was.

Made by Edmund McMillen and James Id, Fingered is £1.59 on Steam.


  1. trn says:

    This really appeals for a bit of throwaway fun.

    Would be perfect for tablet / phone. Unfortunately I can’t find out if this is planned as the results I get when I google ‘Android Fingered’ are disturbing to say the least.

  2. BluePencil says:

    It’s a great concept for a game. However, the clues you get are sometimes not helpful. For example, you’re often told the guilty one either does or does not look like a freak. But most of the time they do all look like freaks. Similarly, you get “ugly” or “not ugly” and I’ve yet to see one that looks handsome. And furthermore I think the game thinks that a bald man with a horn coming out of his head doesn’t count as bald.

    So, great idea, but it’s like the clues don’t work with the visuals. It seems a bit broken.

    • ButteringSundays says:

      I have a feeling that’s part of the point?

      People have crappy memories and are chock-full of biases – I like the idea that you have to work with that, rather than just getting a list of precise descriptions – I mean, what would be the point in that?

      (Naturally too much and you’re entering frustration territory though…)

      • BluePencil says:

        In my experience it’s “too much” and “enters frustration territory”.

  3. HopperUK says:

    The comments section at Shut Up and Sit Down suggested a variant on Guess Who that sounds fun. Judgmental Guess Who, where you’re only allowed to refer to non-physical qualities of a person. So ‘Do they have red hair?’ isn’t allowed, but ‘Do they take far too much sugar in their tea?’ or ‘Do they play Magic: the Gathering?’ are valid questions.

  4. dahools says:

    She was probably less impressed by her sex change before before beating up the devil. . .

    Or perhaps the two were related?