Also "knowing storytelling" is just matter of experience and ability to compare how competent one storytelling stacks to another + its really matter of preferences in storytelling, since yes it does matter.
"Knowing storytelling" really has nothing to do with experience, anymore than critiquing a
game's story has anything to do with experience. You don't have to be H. P. Lovecraft or Joseph Campell to understand whether or not a story is effectively-told or not.
Most stories, especially in video games, usually take familiar plot concepts and archetypes and try to layer it with the game's own characters, lore, and narrative build. These are simple things that literally any bystander or amateur to storytelling can grasp: "Good versus Evil", the "Hero's Journey", the "Coming of Age", things of that nature. It's quite common, and you know what kind of story a game is trying to tell when you see it...it's the same thing with films, or comics, or anime. Even if the audience can't completely relate to the world or characters, they can garner some semblance of what the original writer intended from the story from the flow and the dialogue, from what dramatic moments and narrative techniques are used.
The
key thing is how
effectively the story is told. Again, you don't need to be a literary expert on this. Basic things like pacing, character development, consistency, the fleshing out of plotpoints and character traits...
these are things that regular people observe, however subconsciously, as they watch or read things. If a story manages to secure even a few of those basic things, then the argument can still be made that the story was at least
told competently. You may not like the story, but all the pieces of the narrative still fell into place: the lore or premise was presented without fail, the audience wasn't confused about what was going on, pivotal plot points were presented clearly and effectively without any miscommunication or vagueness, and throughout the narrative the audience can at least
understand the characters' motives and emotions without vital scenes falling flat.
In other words, regardless of whether or not you
liked a certain story, it's effectiveness rests in how well you at least understood it: Does everything make sense? Did you know what was going on? Did you know who was who, and what was driving them the whole time? Do the comprehensible moments outweigh the confusing ones? And
most importantly, did you understand how you were
supposed to feel during a certain scene, even if you didn't agree?
Good. That means the story was at least competently-told, even if you didn't like it or consider it cliche and devoid of anything interesting. Whenever someone is talking about "the difference between good writing and bad writing", they're usually talking about everything I've written right here. Good writing isn't measured in how much you like it---it's measured in how objectively well the author reached the goals he/she set out to achieve through the narrative, and more importantly,
how clearly the audience perceived them.
Whether or not a story is "good", or "captivating", or "deep" is all subject of opinion. I won't sit here and argue which of
DMC's or
DmC's stories are better because how well you bonded with the characters or engrossed yourself in the narrative is up to you.
But what I can say, just as a someone who has attended numerous literature, research writing, contemporary storytelling, and literary analysis classes, with a moderate aspiration of---however possible or unlikely---becoming a novelist myself, I have a fair understanding on what constitutes as a story that's "effectively told well."
And
DmC, on its worse possible day, still is an effectively better-told story and more competent narrative than most, if not all of the original
Devil May Cry games
. The plot reaches all of the narrative and emotional landmarks it initially sets up for itself, most of the scenes make enough sense on the spot without the need for any vague or misconstrued implications, at least
decently resolves MOST of the characters' roles in the story by the end of the game, and achieves more of its emotional goals through quicker, more subtle, and more effective means.
It's less about which story is better, so much as which one was
told better. It's like judging a pair of cakes in a cooking competition...except the overall goal
here is not which one tastes better, but which one is burnt less, effectively put-together, and easier to swallow.
And for better or for worse, that story is
DmC. It's not about it being infinitely better or groundbreaking in comparison to the originals....it's just that it doesn't tell its story as much of an incompetent and amateurish fashion. It's not nearly as convoluted and left to implication as its original predecessors, it relies more on interactions between characters than flashy fight scenes and drawn-out spectacles, and achieves more of the intended reaction that the author strove for when starting a certain plot point or establishing a certain emotional scene.
Even if I hated
DmC with all of my unbridled fury, this is something I would have to admit objectively as someone who knows something about writing.
And it's not something I
enjoy admitting, because
DMC4 is my favorite game in the series...and I honestly wish
it had the better approach to storytelling.
But I know a more competently-woven plot when I see one, and I can safely admit which game has it...even if it happens to be in the one that I honestly like less. It's the same way I can say that
Revenge of the Sith is my favorite
Star Wars movie, while being ready to admit that
Empire Strikes Back is unquestionably more effective, better paced and more competently told as a story.
That's called removing a personal bias, and looking at something you like objectively.
It seldom happens in fandoms, especially in
DMC's...but if these blazing forum arguments and constant comparisons have to happen, then that's the first step both
DMC and
DmC's defendants need to take in order to be taken seriously.
But god forbid, someone gives DmC even a little criticism. Then it's "*Annoyed groan* Just let it go and move on!".
I absolutely agree with you. This is a constant problem on the part of
DmC fans, and I really wish it would stop. I can understand the instinctive revulsion, since most of the discussions on these types of threads consist mostly of blatant, poorly-argued bias than anything substantial...
...but there
do exist legit and obvious flaws in
DmC (even though I almost never see them pointed out, ironically enough), and I've seen perfectly rational and well-thought out arguments addressing them. I don't like watching people with legit arguments be silenced anymore than you do. It's gotten to the point where sensible debating and discussion of both games never surface, because both the
DmC and
DMC defendants would much rather take mountains of thread space to argue with themselves and measure each others' schlongs through series' sales.
There's a reason people are afraid to join the fanbase, guys. Both sides are contributing to that exact reason.
There are still a plethora of things that are solidified concepts in storytelling that are beyond one's preferences. No one can just legitimately pull a Dude and say it's all opinion, because no, it is most certainly not all just.
Pretty much. Opinions have little to do with works that are universally considered to be poorly-made or poorly-executed. For instance, I love the sh!t out of the
Underworld films, but that doesn't mean I won't admit that most of the acting and writing in those films are more stilted towards crapping excess of exposition than developing the characters.
That one small step of admitting flaws in something you like, that most meager of efforts to dislodge your thumb from the puckered depths of your bias...
that is the difference between a fan, and a fanboy.
