What constitutes good storytelling is as subjective as most other considerations when it comes to the appreciation of comics art. Storytelling is not an exact science; what some people consider daring and experimental, others find confusing.
Personally, I find what is traditionally considered 'solid' storytelling pretty pedestrian and really only means restaging the same scenes over and over again.
Sure, it tells a story clearly, which is fine if that is your sole criteria, but to my mind it doesn't challenge or surprise the reader.
If comics artists had only been interested in clear storytelling, we never would've gotten Eisner's '60 Seconds', Krigsteins 'Master Race', Adams, Steranko, Wrightson, et al who were constantly pushing the boundaries.

I'm a big fan of Marvel Comics during the highpoint of Jim Shooter's tenure as EiC (up until 1985), but one of the most oft-voiced criticism of his editorship is that he was reigning in all the exuberant experimentation of the near anarchic period that preceded it, forcing people to conform to the straightjacket of Kirby's 6-9 panel grid.
Both approaches - traditional and experimental - are equally valid and entertaining, but to dismiss the more experimental artists as mere 'flash and no substance' is to wilfully turn a blind eye to the discipline and thought involved.

And you need a healthy dialectic between the new and the old, otherwise entropy ensues.

 Irony and subtly are the first casualties in the eternal battle of wits between people divided by a common language. So read between the lines or you'll fall through the cracks...

....Quoting other people is no substitute for thinking for yourself...

Do you dare enter where angels fear to thread: Comicidal Maniac -  Mystic Master of the Martial Arts - SWords of Sorcery