Ludonarrative dissonance

+
1)Actually the nature of the relic and Vs chances of survival are never made clear. There are multiple sources with different answers to the question. Vik: hurry up and solve it. Hellman: Its already too late. Alt: as long as you don't die I can fix it.

Well to be fair Alt is an all, so for her (maybe) half-truths are still truths. What I mean is that if someone tells you that a lethal poison will kill you and another that the lethal poison will cure you, they are both right you know:)Alt might just not see what the big deal is if you lose part of yourself/humanity, while Vik is all 'that's very bad!!' .
 
Well to be fair Alt is an all, so for her (maybe) half-truths are still truths. What I mean is that if someone tells you that a lethal poison will kill you and another that the lethal poison will cure you, they are both right you know:)Alt might just not see what the big deal is if you lose part of yourself/humanity, while Vik is all 'that's very bad!!' .

alt is saying the best way to solve it, in her opinion, is rewrite, she does tell you it has a price, but she has no other option she could do. My point isn't really one is right and one is wrong, its more that the relic is not a known quantity, and the game never tells you the right way to solve the situation. Different characters have different opinions, and the player is supposed to fill in V's understanding.

hindsight reveals they were all some degree of wrong, and some degree of right. But the game always presented it as a viewpoint type thing. Right when Vik says solve it now, Misty says solving it should not be your focus, She seems to suggest you could come to peace with your new nature/situation and live life to the fullest.
 
1)Actually the nature of the relic and Vs chances of survival are never made clear. There are multiple sources with different answers to the question. Vik: hurry up and solve it. Hellman: Its already too late. Alt: as long as you don't die I can fix it.
It's made clear that V is dying from early on in the second act. There's a glimmer of hope offered by possible ways out, but this only serves to increase the sense of urgency.

My point is not that these actions are just what the player wants to do
Your point appears to be a moving target, then.

its that these actions represent what V wants to do
So is it the player that decides what V wants to do, or is it V? In either case, why would V want to do these things?

Basically the whole problem is the game AND the narrative is designed such that the player creates V's story,
The game railroads the player into what role they can choose for V. Because V is dying, and solving that problem is arranged as central to the plot.

but you don't accept that the game is literally designed for you the player to fill in V's role.
Because it isn't. It's designed for the player to pick dialogue in a CYOA fashion, and click LMB at the appropriate times. Wandering around doing gigs in the open world is far beyond what scant roleplaying framework there is provided by the game.

The game is designed after a TT rpg, the narrative and game design is built around that.
That's opening a whole other can of worms.

If V is cannot do anything until Takemura calls V, why wouldn't V do something she wants to do with that time?
Because V is dying. Idle distractions are plausible, but ironically this is one of the areas where gameplay is sorely lacking.
 
It's made clear that V is dying from early on in the second act. There's a glimmer of hope offered by possible ways out, but this only serves to increase the sense of urgency.


Your point appears to be a moving target, then.


So is it the player that decides what V wants to do, or is it V? In either case, why would V want to do these things?


The game railroads the player into what role they can choose for V. Because V is dying, and solving that problem is arranged as central to the plot.


Because it isn't. It's designed for the player to pick dialogue in a CYOA fashion, and click LMB at the appropriate times. Wandering around doing gigs in the open world is far beyond what scant roleplaying framework there is provided by the game.


That's opening a whole other can of worms.


Because V is dying. Idle distractions are plausible, but ironically this is one of the areas where gameplay is sorely lacking.

ok, so the heart of the difference of opinion is you don't understand what the game's intent is.

The player is supposed to create V, and inhabit that character. Because its a videogame, with a narrative, there are limits.

still, V is not a character whom you watch and direct, you are placed inside V. they only show you what V sees, hears. They ask you what V thinks. What V's past, present is.

V is not a predetermined character.

So you are looking for the main plot to explain things, but the main plot is mostly just supposed to drive the action, The player is supposed to act out and decide the things you are talking about.

as to why would the player/v do these things? thats up to the player. Some players don't want to do them, and thats fine. This game and narrative, is not a movie, its interactive and the player creates most of the important parts of the narrative. Why is V here, who is V, what does V think, how does V react, What does V learn, How does V change. What did V do.


Now you are free to say thats not the type of game you want to play, you prefer an RPG with a mostly fixed protagonist, where you reveal that character through gameplay, but thats not this game, and thats not an accident, and both the game design and the narrative design is built with this in mind. They specifically don't tell you what V does in downtime so that each player can choose for themselves, based on who they think V is as a character
 
V is not a predetermined character.

V.....kind of is? We are not yet at the stage where we can have the kind of game you are talking about. Unfortunately. And believe me, I would love such a game, but that is still somewhere in the.....hopefully near(ish) future. I imagine there will need to be AI to be able to change the world depending on your actions....and even then the voice acting.....who knows. That is a problem for smarter people than me:)
...anyway back to the point: V is a predetermined character. Yes, we have multiple paths we could take them, but they are chosen for us and are (understandably) limited. If we want V to flirt (or even talk to for some length of time) with the bouncers at Lizzy's bar...well.....now we have to enter the wonderful world of headcanons or maybe outside the game and some fanfiction. :)
 
V.....kind of is? We are not yet at the stage where we can have the kind of game you are talking about. Unfortunately. And believe me, I would love such a game, but that is still somewhere in the.....hopefully near(ish) future. I imagine there will need to be AI to be able to change the world depending on your actions....and even then the voice acting.....who knows. That is a problem for smarter people than me:)
...anyway back to the point: V is a predetermined character. Yes, we have multiple paths we could take them, but they are chosen for us and are (understandably) limited. If we want V to flirt (or even talk to for some length of time) with the bouncers at Lizzy's bar...well.....now we have to enter the wonderful world of headcanons or maybe outside the game and some fanfiction. :)

I am not saying V is completely fabricated by the player, I am saying V's character is not a predetermined one, like a character in a movie. The vast majority of who V is as a character is determined by the player. And the game is designed to let the player choose most of Vs character. They expect the player decide things

What music does V like
How does V fight
What does V believe in
Who does V trust
What does V learn
What sex is V
What race
What background
Is V a killer
Is V charismatic
Is V a rebel
what does V do in downtime
Who does V like
What does V want
Who does V associate with
Does V fear death
Is V kind
Does V care about random people
Is v spiritual
What cars does V drive
Does V like driving
What clothes does V wear


Far more of V's character is determined by the player than by a fixed narrative, The whole character arc of V is player generated. This isn't just an accident, they go out if their way not to define V directly, and give tons of dialog options whose sole purpose is to express who the player thinks V is as a charachter. They let what V knows, be determined by what the player finds out, or thinks.

all we have to do is start comparing my V's game to yours before it becomes very clear that most of V's story/charachter is variable, and chosen by the player.
 
what V knows, be determined by what the player finds out, or thinks.

....wasn't going to answer individual points, but stumbled on this and just can't resist.
That is just not true. My V can be smarter than I am:)
In fact that's what makes a good RPG....well...good, doesn't it?
all we have to do is start comparing my V's game to yours before it becomes very clear that most of V's story/charachter is variable, and chosen by the player.

That's just it. We do have some freedom, but it is pretty dependant on the devs. You CAN think that V likes one type of music, for example, but if an NPC asks you about your music preferences, you very well might not get your chosen genre/type:)

Anyway that is way offtopic, so let's not invite the moderators:)
 
ok, so the heart of the difference of opinion is you don't understand what the game's intent is.
I already addressed this.

The implication of V dying, and how it is presented to the player as an intrusive and urgent problem, creates ludonarrative dissonance when the player is presented with certain gameplay options. The fact that it isn't possible to roleplay this conflict out of existence is WHY ludonarrative dissonance arises in this game in the first place.

Put another way, it wouldn't be ludonarrative dissonance if there WERE an easy way to explain certain gameplay options with roleplay. But the discontinuity between the narrative and the gameplay is the entire reason that immersion is broken and this conflict arises. The presence of ludonarrative dissonance in the game implies roleplay is insufficient. Repeating "but bro, it's an RPG" lacks the necessary logical power to break this conundrum.

Even if we were to conclude that Cyberpunk fails the satisfy a rigorous definition of ludonarrative dissonance, there are STILL many players who find the ticking clock element of their character's impending death to be an excessive intrusion on their ability to enjoy the game and the open game world. There really isn't a way to argue against this, as it is a personal take on the game, and one based in characteristics that are mostly unique to the game in particular.
 
not really, Geralt had a research / investigation mission, with only some clue here and there to follow, so his mission requires a "long time" (even just for the trip on horseback, not on an high speed train...). Ciri was in danger, sure, but no one knew how or when she could be REALLY in danger. Moreover the game world/set itself is very different from cyberpunk: witcher 3 is not a futuristic metropolis where life runs fast while you are about to expire with a "bomb" in your brain, but a medieval world in which Geralt, in his mission, faces a LONG and SLOW journey to reach his goal, and where he needs to keep himself along the way through his job as monster hunter....and to get information about Ciri he often has to do "favors", because nothing is for free. To me, It's perfectly in line and coherent, the analogy with cyberpunk and it's imminent death feeling doesn't have much sense imho.

Geralt can quite literally stop to play Gwent while Ciri is in danger, and while Geralt for a long while only has some clues to Ciri's whereabouts and nothing definite...he does know right from the start that she is in mortal danger. The story sort of demands that Geralt should be focusing on finding Ciri and ONLY finding Ciri, but that isn't what happens if you deviate at all from the main story path.

The Witcher 3 has exactly the same ludonarrative dissonance as Cyberpunk. The only reason why it is ignored with TW3 and criticized with Cyberpunk is because the former was a good game & the latter wasn't. People are unlikely to notice minor flaws when they love a game or will even go an extra mile to defend them from criticism but are inclined to go over a game with a fine-toothed comb if they did not enjoy it and pick apart every flaw.
 
Geralt can quite literally stop to play Gwent while Ciri is in danger, and while Geralt for a long while only has some clues to Ciri's whereabouts and nothing definite...he does know right from the start that she is in mortal danger. The story sort of demands that Geralt should be focusing on finding Ciri and ONLY finding Ciri, but that isn't what happens if you deviate at all from the main story path.

The Witcher 3 has exactly the same ludonarrative dissonance as Cyberpunk. The only reason why it is ignored with TW3 and criticized with Cyberpunk is because the former was a good game & the latter wasn't. People are unlikely to notice minor flaws when they love a game or will even go an extra mile to defend them from criticism but are inclined to go over a game with a fine-toothed comb if they did not enjoy it and pick apart every flaw.
TW3 handles the issue slightly better.

Even though the game is open world, the structure is still somewhat linear with how Geralt progresses to each new area, following behind Ciri. It feels more like an epic journey, with Geralt experiencing a variety of things along the way. There's also a thematic element in that Geralt can't fight all Ciri's battles for her, and that, at some point, he needs to trust that she can take care of herself.
 
TW3 handles the issue slightly better.

Even though the game is open world, the structure is still somewhat linear with how Geralt progresses to each new area, following behind Ciri. It feels more like an epic journey, with Geralt experiencing a variety of things along the way. There's also a thematic element in that Geralt can't fight all Ciri's battles for her, and that, at some point, he needs to trust that she can take care of herself.
Plus TW3's main quest is longer, so if you're one of those players that are bothered by urgency you can skip most side quests without missing out on too much content. And it might be just me, but I found it hard to get enough money to repair Geralt's armor and weapons in Velen so I have to take contracts at some point, and it makes sense within the story. Can't run around with a broken sword.

I can justify V doing gigs to get better equipment and cyberware but up to a certain point. The most jarring moments for me were Pyramid Song and Kerry's Us Cracks quest line in Act 3, going diving alone with Judy with worsening symptoms didn't seem like a great idea and Kerry's issue felt pretty trivial in light of V's problem. Which is a shame because I really like his character arc, it's just the wrong moment for it.
 
it's just the wrong moment for it
lead quest designer pawel also mentioned this issue
that not all players will reach that questline

after hellman directly tells that there is no way out and alt will use sk the game became enough fatalistic
there are many lines about fear to become overwritten and i was ready to accept it easy
but dividing the continuity of the original consciousness prevents from fully immersing in this philosophy
 
I love the facts that things go south so quickly - very much in the spirit of the original game. But I have to agree about the ticking time bomb in your head - if you're playing as the game pushes you to, there's no chance to explore a damn thing. As people have observed, it's very counterintuitive. They needed to resolve the dissonance.
 
First of all, YAY I got to use that phrase!

Secondly, personally I think it's a mistake to have gone through the incredible lengths the devs went through to achieve creating Night City, to give me such an amazing open world to play in, but then narratively tell me I'm dying quickly. I mean, it just makes every side-job and gig ring a little hollow. I noticed it when I wanted to buy a particularly expensive car so I gigged pretty hard to earn the eddies and it suddenly struck me: What the hell am I doing? This makes no sense for my character in-game.

They built an incredible world for me to play in, then gave my character an in-game reason to not enjoy it, while at the same time trying to give me the player tons of reasons to explore and enjoy it.

I think I'd like the option of creating a character not tied to the main storyline.
Likely the rewriting and refocusing after hiring KR changed things a lot.
Imagine:
City Open from the start (or at least next day game time after a crime based temporary lockdown - can't lockdown entire section of a city for long especially industrial/fuel area.)
Multiple missions before the Heist - working with partner or some alone as you build comradery and player and V together start learning advanced tactics.
Heist
Then its a gonna die soon let me find a way to cure myself.
"Partner" in adventures switches from Jackie to JSH - smoother transition
Less feeling of disconnect dying person going on all these adventures when you're dying.
Post automatically merged:

I think frankly the game makes it clear that a large portion of the side quests in the game relate to death and people dealing with it. A major theme of the game is "What do you do when you have little time left in the world?" V can save a lot of people, make a legend for themselves, kill people who have it coming, and more.

I think a bigger question is, "Does your V BELIEVE in what he's doing?" My V is saving cyberpsychos, taking down gangs, and settling business.

The Side Gigs and missions he's doing are important. It seems that a lot of players don't seem to think their V would be doing them for the sake of doing them.
If you were told that 1% of your brain would be rewritten a day (whereas in the game is is implied you have mere weeks by a medical professional V trusts) thus in 100 days you fully cease to be and in 50 days there is less of you than the other fellow.

Do you really think you would focus so much time on other peoples problems and being a vigilante? Vast majority would be a big NO. Unless you "give up" accept you're dying and do as much as you can before the end. But that isn't the story. The story is find all the possible pieces to maybe find a cure and possibilities therein (Hellman, AI, etc.. etc..).

Now take that premise and change it to 30ish days (4 weeks or so) so 3+% loss a day.
Do you really think V's goal and player motivation will be collect all da money and buy every car?
Pursuing long term relationships when you don't have an expectation, merely a hope, of finding a way to live?

The rationale for attack X number of crime scenes and kill Y gangers a day - and oh by the way I just lost 3% of my identity and hence memory is a fair trade! falls apart very quickly. UNLESS V changes over to a fuck trying to find improbable cure and living in the moment.

That COULD be changed if you switch the impetus like one of the in-game ADS on nanosurgery on a V needs X dollars to pay for the potential surgery/treatment then you have LOTS of motivation to do lots of things and in doing those mission you come across the Arasaka/Mikoshi storyline
 
Last edited:
Likely the rewriting and refocusing after hiring KR changed things a lot.
Imagine:
City Open from the start (or at least next day game time after a crime based temporary lockdown - can't lockdown entire section of a city for long especially industrial/fuel area.)
Multiple missions before the Heist - working with partner or some alone as you build comradery and player and V together start learning advanced tactics.
Heist
Then its a gonna die soon let me find a way to cure myself.
"Partner" in adventures switches from Jackie to JSH - smoother transition
Less feeling of disconnect dying person going on all these adventures when you're dying.
Post automatically merged:


If you were told that 1% of your brain would be rewritten a day (whereas in the game is is implied you have mere weeks by a medical professional V trusts) thus in 100 days you fully cease to be and in 50 days there is less of you than the other fellow.

Do you really think you would focus so much time on other peoples problems and being a vigilante? Vast majority would be a big NO. Unless you "give up" accept you're dying and do as much as you can before the end. But that isn't the story. The story is find all the possible pieces to maybe find a cure and possibilities therein (Hellman, AI, etc.. etc..).

Now take that premise and change it to 30ish days (4 weeks or so) so 3+% loss a day.
Do you really think V's goal and player motivation will be collect all da money and buy every car?
Pursuing long term relationships when you don't have an expectation, merely a hope, of finding a way to live?

The rationale for attack X number of crime scenes and kill Y gangers a day - and oh by the way I just lost 3% of my identity and hence memory is a fair trade! falls apart very quickly. UNLESS V changes over to a fuck trying to find improbable cure and living in the moment.

That COULD be changed if you switch the impetus like one of the in-game ADS on nanosurgery on a V needs X dollars to pay for the potential surgery/treatment then you have LOTS of motivation to do lots of things and in doing those mission you come across the Arasaka/Mikoshi storyline

no one knows how or when things will happen. Vik isn't diagnosing a known illness. He just knows the intent of the relic. Just because something looks like it will kill you in a couple weeks doesn't mean it kills you 1% at a time. And neither does Hellman, Hellman predicts a painful and unavoidable death, not a gradual becoming of Johnny. For example, People with brain tumors generally still retain sense of self, and the process isn't like a straight line. Hellman says test subjects were all "neutrally indifferent" before So there is no history that can tell people what to expect.

As for whether you would try to do anything else, that depends on the person. Their values. Getting every car might be a rare response, but it happens. However the gameplay doesn't encourage that, so its not really relevant. Something existing in the game world doesn't constitute that the game expects you to do it.

As for romances, many people would try to get with a person they find attractive(mentally or physically), if they could, if they may die in 2-3 weeks.

The gameplay isn't designed to encourage you to kill gangers, its just an option, that has some benefits. (mostly being harder to kill if you live). And the narrative fits that design. I think one of the big differences of opinion is that some people think the gameplay is encouraging you to do most of the things on the map. Its not, its just there to tell you here is something you can engage with, if you choose to.

They give you timed breaks, days between being contacted, what V does with that time is up to V. The same way some one with brain surgery scheduled in 3 days, does whatever they feel like doing, for whatever reasons.

To be clear, both the gameplay and the narrative designs side content as being driven by the player/charachter's desires. And different people/charachters respond to life and death situations differently. There is no definitive answer. The narrative literally tells you that. Right when vik says one thing, misty says another.



Ask the question 24 hours to live, what would you do, you get 100 different answers.
Post automatically merged:

Plus TW3's main quest is longer, so if you're one of those players that are bothered by urgency you can skip most side quests without missing out on too much content. And it might be just me, but I found it hard to get enough money to repair Geralt's armor and weapons in Velen so I have to take contracts at some point, and it makes sense within the story. Can't run around with a broken sword.

I can justify V doing gigs to get better equipment and cyberware but up to a certain point. The most jarring moments for me were Pyramid Song and Kerry's Us Cracks quest line in Act 3, going diving alone with Judy with worsening symptoms didn't seem like a great idea and Kerry's issue felt pretty trivial in light of V's problem. Which is a shame because I really like his character arc, it's just the wrong moment for it.

Going diving with Judy has risks, but so does everything else, like crossing the street. You got an oxygen mask, and someone going with you. Its probably one of the least risky things V can do.

As for Kerry's stuff, you are getting paid to do it, but I think mostly its presented as something to do besides killing or focusing on your possible death. With a side of making sure Kerry isn't suicidal still.
Post automatically merged:

....wasn't going to answer individual points, but stumbled on this and just can't resist.
That is just not true. My V can be smarter than I am:)
In fact that's what makes a good RPG....well...good, doesn't it?


That's just it. We do have some freedom, but it is pretty dependant on the devs. You CAN think that V likes one type of music, for example, but if an NPC asks you about your music preferences, you very well might not get your chosen genre/type:)

Anyway that is way offtopic, so let's not invite the moderators:)

most rpgs allow you to simulate being good at something, but specifically intellegience is hard to simulate or ignore. As to whether that makes it a good rpg or a bad one, that depends on the goals of the RPG.

If the rpg game design is focused on living the fantasy of being hyper intellegient, it needs to create mechanics to get around that. But if the rpg game design is built around becoming immersed in a role, then simulating hyper skill might go directly against the game design.

bringing it back to the OP, its important when you design an rpg to decide what the goals of game design is, and the goals of the narrative elements, and align them. I'd say the game design here is to let the player immerse themselves in a situation where they are Merc, in a dangerous, oppressive city who might die any day.
 
Last edited:
As I was posting in another thread, I remembered something I realized on first playing the game.

OK, so the game is what it is, an unfinished, half-baked RPG with a rather well done and engaging story involving a famous actor larded on top.

But what can be done with the least effort to salvage it as much as it can be salvaged in the state of things (which, let's not kid ourselvse, is probably not going to change much)?

Well, it would be to decouple the urgency from the RPG. The RPG, half-baked though it is, would be massively improved in a psychological sense just by removing the fake sense of urgency the game introduces immediately after the Heist. And that could easily be done by deleting Viktor's "two weeks tops" and (if there's no money for it) replacing it with an animated shrug, or replacing it with something like "There's no way of knowing, it could be two weeks, two months, a year, impossible to say."

That would immediately make sense of the fact that there's this whole RPG game thingy attached to CDPR's beloved V/Keanu story. Without the fake urgency, there would be sense to taking some time levelling up, doing gigs, etc. With the fake urgency, there's no sense to the whole thing, and it's just incredibly annoying. Even more annoying that you can basically leave some of those supposedly urgent quests dangling for basically the whole game (for example, one can completely forget about going to the parade at Takemura's request. Apparently they had this parade to honour the biggest businessman in the world, but they'll just keep postponing it day after day after day at a lone merc's convenience :) ).

More tweaks in the same vein: postpone the first chat with Takemura in the noodle bar until V has done some levelling up (say 10-15). In that time some of the Evelyn Parker and Panam questlines could be done at the player's pace too. Then also postpone the chat with Takemura and Oda at the docks, and then again postpone the dirigible-spiking at Arasaka. Stretch out those elements and then you leave it up to the player how urgently they feel.

Doing it that way even fits with the story better, because you'd be a) expressing in your choices part of the "ontological" dilemma given to you by Dex - depending on what you feel like as your V, you might be concerned either to sort the problem out quickly and leave nothing to chance, or just not care so much, and trust that it's just going to take a while for the takever. But also b) it would give the player a chance to get into the saddle of their V, so that the dilemma between them (as a character) and Johnny taking them over has more bite, more resonance. (As it is, because you haven't had a chance to "be V" the dilemma doesn't have much weight at all - you either just hate Johnny as a player, or quite like him, the problem of him possibly taking over your mind/excising your soul as V doesn't really weigh very heavily.)

Basically, just stretch some of the key points out a bit, and give the RPG side of the game some psychological space, some room to breathe. Get rid of the fake urgency and leave the question of urgency up to the player.
 
Last edited:
Really liked the illusion of time limit you are presented with. At first it seems like you need to rush and try to prevent the inevitable. It gives you the sense of hope. At least the first time you play through. But the moment you realise there isn't much you're in control of - it's the moment you can slow down and take your time to explore. I think it works pretty well.
 
Honestly, i was even shocked to see that Judy, who i romanced and was together with me, didnt even care about me dying?
If my love interest is about to die, dont i do everything i can to help the person?
It made zero sense for her to just abandon me and not help me.
She didnt even try..
So much wrong with the story in my opinion..
Judy left with V, Panam and the Nomads, in one of the endings (5) I did.
Post automatically merged:

Dissonance, no. We speak of duality, white, black; night, day; life, death.
 
Last edited:
If you're gonna write a time limit into a game, then stick to it and get a game over screen if you go over. Why did it need to be so short in the first place? They could written that it will take months to fully kill you, but you will notice effects earlier that get progressively worse and nothing would have been lost. Considering how many "wait a day for x to call" there are, "few weeks" is just laughable.

You can make whatever arguments you want, it's just BAD writing. Nothing kills immersion worse than a false sense of urgency, just don't do it. Ever. If the writing tells you to hurry, you should fail if you don't. Can you imagine if in a movie, there was a timebomb and action music and all that jazz and then when it hit 0 nothing would happen and the protagonist is having a cup of coffee with their girlfriend.

Just don't do it. It's that simple.
 
Personally I don't like the time limit in games, even if it is just a narrative one. It's cheap ploy to create tension and immersion, which quickly falls apart beacause you hear that you have weeks to live, but also you can literally spend months of in game time and nothing happens.

Bad writing. And it gets worst each time you start new playthrough especially given the fact that all endings are, well they all are, what they are. Giving inevitable conclusion to all the stories make all the effort of choosing different options seem pointless in a story driven game - as CDPR no longer markets it as RPG.

Maybe if you skip the main quest at the start of the game and just do all the side gigs first it will give game some of this "urgent" notion, as nearing the end you find yourself in this predicament of being on a "time limit". I don't know, it's just the feeling that they used this thing to quickly and don't give me time to enjoy my time with V and the city.
 
Top Bottom