Android Game: Polygon

Do you love colors , then download this game. Game`s goal is to match the color of the circle with the colors of triangles . There are 2 modes which have submodes in them. Arcade: Classic Here are no time limits , just don`t make a mistake. Time Rush In this mode you can make mistakes , but the time is your main enemy. Multiplayer: Do you want play a game with your friends ? Then hurry up ! Download this game . Multiplayer mode is for You! The rules in this mode is simple too , if you shoot right, then your score increments , and if you shoot wrong your score decrements. Polygon is created by students . Members: Abel Ghazinyan(16 years old) , Vahe Muradyan(16 years old) Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Category: Casual | Views: 686 | Reviews: 1 | Added: 2015-03-17

See Google Play download link below


App features

  • Colorful
  • Interesting
  • Multiple Modes
  • Play with your firends
Get it on Google Play

Rate Polygon

Write a review and rate
Please write your review with max. 300 characters.
Verification image, type it in the box
Verification image, type it in the box

Latest 10 comments

2015-06-17 08:12:14: Ian,Thanks I'd still say that even action-consequence opaoiisttmin requires a pre-determined/assumed/agreed moral/ethical goal or value-judgment that is other-than-empirically based' in order to distinguish a good/goal-fitting consequence from a bad/goal-breaking one.And yes, I think that the objective moral truth' of (for example) wanton murder being wrong is well-open to rational enquiry (we can use plenty of useful reasoning according to ethical traditions, goals, emotions, intuitions none of which are antithetical to reason). I just don't think it can be based on facts .Damian,Sorry for gap busy weekend :) it seems that you don’t have an issue with the concept that atoms, when combined, have form entities which have goals and, therefore, ‘oughts’. Is this correct?If so, then I think my point is made. All ‘oughts’ eventually break down to ‘ises’.I agree that we can objectively/indifferently describe the oughts' that atom-clusters can' have, but the question the is/ought distinction is properly related to is the question of whether the is' of what things/people are can alone dictate or prescribe what they ought' to do more below A key distinction I'd want to add would be the ability' and responsibility' one. I'm quite happy with a spectrum of both ability and responsibility from amoebas, aardvarks, apes and Adam-ites. Each is able to do more things but (here's the key point) more things which are in AND out of harmony with goals.We all benefit hugely by living in a society which punishes harmful acts and rewards acts that are beneficial to the survival of the society. Of course we’re going to share an ‘ought’ about rape especially when it is so demonstrably harmful to a society (and, therefore, us).The question is not about the FACT of sharing an ought' about rape, but about whether or not rape is Truly wrong does it contradict any True goal for humans, or just ones that we humans happen to share (mostly)? I.e. is rape only wrong' in a society which punishes harmful acts and rewards acts that are beneficial to the survival of the society ?? If so, then does this not make morality subject to the moral consensus of the current society we live in? Which brings me to your closing progression:We, as members of a human society, can ask “ought we not harm others?” which will step us into the goal of living in a society which steps us into the goal of personal benefit which steps us into the goal of survival which fades out into goalless ‘ises’.First, there are other places we can/should start from like the question: should a person rejected by their community commit suicide when depressed and tempted to?' This person's goal' (at least for the moment) is not to harm another, or to live in society, but to end it all. Or how about the wife who can keep her infidelity from her husband and from anyone else and therefore not hurt' him or offend anyone's sensibilities about infidelity? Not hurting' the husband (at least biologically) tick. Living in society tick. Or for that matter, what about ANY private activity?I've also just seen that the key step in your attempt to base ought' on is'-es is the step of getting all oughts' to the basic ought' of survival. From there, it's all genetics.The problem is that the goal of survival is not self-evident (i.e. suicide and abortion grey this one up considerably), and is also possible to be attained immorally. I'm thinking here of the way-too-often-referred-to exampple of Hitler and the survival' of the pure arian race. He was trying to brainwash/intimidate/'lead' society to have values consistent with this goal. For an example using your progression (for argument sake not to pretend that you and other atheists all think Nazi's are cool): We, as members of a Nazi society, can ask “ought we kill Jews?” (which will step us into the goal of living in a [Nazi] society which steps us into the goal of personal benefit which steps us into the goal of [Arian] survival which fades out into goalless ‘ises’.What I'd want to suggest is that survival' is not the primary human goal. I believe that loving relationship is pretty damned near the ultimate goal for humans. And I know there are no facts' to support this. But we all know' it in other ways. I'm tired and going to bed now sorry if less than wonderfully coherent :) Dale