PDA

View Full Version : [B/W] How do you feel about less emphasis being placed on HMs?


Forever
February 23rd, 2011, 10:03 PM
Some of you may know that in Black and White, only four HMs are given out before the Elite Four, while to beat the main story, you only need one HM - Cut. Adding to that, overall there are only 6 HMs that can be obtained, the second lowest amount that can be obtained in games - with generation 1 having the lowest (5 HMs). On the plus side, you only need one HM slave!

Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?

Haowakeorden
February 23rd, 2011, 10:29 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
On the whole I support the idea slightly. As someone who spends more time playing Pokémon games for the battles rather than the story, I think many of the HMs contain moves that aren't really great in combat (i.e. there are better options), so in general I'd like to see either fewer required HMs, or HM moves getting stronger.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
For me, yes. As I said earlier many HMs don't contain really great moves, so it's good that only one is needed. But if all the HMs contain pretty strong moves (Surf is a great move), I wouldn't care as much about how many HMs are required.

MrGriszell
February 23rd, 2011, 10:43 PM
I think they should get rid of HMs from the move pool and have to be ability you can teach your pokemon to use outside of battles.
For example your charizard can have the ability to fly and cut down trees outside of battle while its inbattle movepool could be 1flamethrower.2. wing attack.3. firespin 4. steel wing
or maybe aply those abilites to an attack for example you can smash rocks(rock smash) with steel wing, or remove trees(cut) with flamethrower. move boulders with takle, takedown etc(strength)
but make it so that even tho snorlaxs tackle can move boulders a pidgys tackle would be inaffective.

. an example your milotic can carry you while swiming in the water because its a water type but not know the move surf.

razzbat
February 24th, 2011, 02:52 AM
i actually didn't like it that much, one of the great things about pokemon for me was the exploration. With the little importance of HMs and the way the region was set up, the level exploration was kind of a bit crummy. :\

PlatinumDude
February 24th, 2011, 02:58 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?: Yes, because I won't have to cram all the HMs on to my Pokemon.
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?: Kind of. I still need Fly to get from place to place.

MeerFall
February 24th, 2011, 03:27 AM
i hate HMs so yes its good to have less

one hm slave? it should be none!

Tropical Sunlight
February 24th, 2011, 03:30 AM
No, I feel HMs should be used as markers of progress - when you beat a Gym, you can pass the blocking obstacle.
And I wanted to see new HMs, but I didn't :(

Weavile05
February 24th, 2011, 03:54 AM
I'm happy to hear that you only need cut to beat the storyline (and fly for ease of city access, but that's a decent move anyway.) However, they should just make stronger HMs. For Example, maybe start out with cut but get an item later in the game that upgrades it to the move Slash. Rock Smash would upgrade to Brick Break or Dynamicpunch, and Whirlpool... well to be honest, I'm not sure. But something like that, you know?

MrGriszell
February 24th, 2011, 03:57 AM
i actually didn't like it that much, one of the great things about pokemon for me was the exploration. With the little importance of HMs and the way the region was set up, the level exploration was kind of a bit crummy. :\
I do agree with you kinda. I think the story of the game shouldnt depend on getting hm i mean how did other people get thru the map right?
but i think hms would be cool to explore the region in depth for example instead of beating a gym leader to use surf to get to a island just to beat another gym leader you should be able to use a boat ( similar to r/s) to get to the island and when you get surf be able to explore the water route more and discover its mysteries. TBH i would rather get all HMs( except maybe fly) after you complete the main story. This would only work if they made the whole map exploreable tho

No, I feel HMs should be used as markers of progress - when you beat a Gym, you can pass the blocking obstacle.
And I wanted to see new HMs, but I didn't :(

It was kinda like that in bw You couldnt just keep going, you had to beat the gym leader to be able to to pass

Kaori
February 24th, 2011, 04:05 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Yes, most definitely. I didn't like the idea of adding an HM move to two of the Pokémon I'd be using against the Elite Four, so I would have to deposit two in the PC while my HM slaves took the 5th and 6th slot of my team. Then I would end up having to train my team without the others, and I'd have to keep switching out between Pokémon to have them all maintain the same level range (I don't really like having one or more Pokémon at a lower level than the others when reaching the E4).

Plus, some of the HMs really didn't have a need to be an HM. Defog would be one good example for this, sure it had to do with the heavy fog that leads to Celestic Town (iirc), but I didn't really see why it couldn't be a TM or just another regular move because that was really the only place fog led up to and I believe one other place? There really wasn't much places with the fog to get rid of, so it being an HM wasn't really necessary in my opinion.

However, I am glad they decided to bring back HM Dive. This was one of my favorite HMs introduced in RSE, and to see it be brought back for B/W makes me curious how often it shall be used throughout the game and what will be down there to retrieve and do.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Once again, yes. This way I won't have to store two of my Pokémon in the PC all the time, and just one this time. :> There's also Fly, but I don't have a problem teaching one of my flying types that, since it's a pretty good move; for in-gaming anyway.

twistedpuppy
February 24th, 2011, 04:30 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Hallelujah! I love that that there are less HMs in these games! I don't really see the need for them to be classified as HMs when they can be just as easily labeled TMs, just as Flash has been made into one since the previous generation. All in all, I'm pretty happy with the selection of HM moves for this generation. Hopefully they'll stay that way for the third game.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
It's ideal to have just one HM slave rather than two, but it's a little disappointing that you'll only need to use one HM for the entire main story.

Pokemon Trainer Touko
February 24th, 2011, 04:41 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games? Yupps~ :)

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story? Yeah~ Because it's more convenient and I dislike HM slaves~! :3

Wait a sec~! You only need to use cut once, right~? You only need to use it in the dream ruins, right~? :D

Sagiri
February 24th, 2011, 04:45 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
To be honest, no. Perhaps it is because I never bothered with HM slaves, and just found certain moves on my team that could be, basically constantly, traded out and vice versa for an HM move, but I never really found the HMs to be that big of a burden. Also, I really enjoy the exploration aspect of HMs - it was always, I thought, very fun to, when getting a new HM, going back to the old areas, trying to remember the places that they'd lead you somewhere new that you noticed a long time ago.


Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Somewhat ironically based on my previous answer, but yes. This makes HMs, almost exclusively, act as ways of exploring, which I always found fun, rather than simple roadblocks to prevent you from going somewhere.

ShinyMeowth
February 24th, 2011, 04:53 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
I never liked HMs in the first place. Reducing them is like a dream come true.
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Yes. I hate having HM slaves, and having to teach cut to one of my six pokemon is nothing compared to the torture I've been receiving all these years.

JP
February 24th, 2011, 05:35 AM
I love the idea of less HM's. People constantly complain about these damn things, and for good reasons. For example, in HGSS you needed to have an HM slave to get up to the peak to battle Red, wasting a useful spot. Only needing one HM to complete the story is just fantastic!

Sabrewulf238
February 24th, 2011, 07:38 AM
I'm really happy with it, it's incredibly annoying when you have to compromise your pokemon's moveset (or your entire team to include HM slaves) just so it can have some moves which aren't ideal but help you out on the field.

I have never understood why they couldn't just have field moves that are completely separate from battle moves. Makes so much more sense.

I might still teach Surf to my Samurott though since it's a pretty useful move. I'll probably just teach Cut to a Patrat.

LightOfTruth
February 24th, 2011, 08:20 AM
So is there any water for Surf in this game? I'm assuming you can use it to get more items plus its a good attack. It will be weird to me not using it as I needed it on the previous games. :)

Giraffe
February 24th, 2011, 09:29 AM
I think it's great! I really hate HM moves - They're annoying, and the obstacles you have to use them on just get in the way.

Katja
February 24th, 2011, 11:04 AM
yes. i have like 3 HM slaves in Platinum and it's really annoying to deposit/withdraw every 5 seconds D:

Sabrewulf238
February 24th, 2011, 12:37 PM
Honestly though, I only ever really seem to use a HM slave when I'm traveling through caves.

Usually I'll have surf and fly on my main team without too much of a bother. It's nice to have them close to hand. Don't really want to be going back and forth to a pokemon box every time I want to fly somewhere...

Nameless.
February 24th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Oooh I love it so very much. HMs are the biggest pain in the tush and I just could not stand having to take up two/three spaces in my party for HM slaves. I could have just put them on my main team yes, but why would I? HMs are typically useless besides Surf, and maybe possibly Fly -- and sometimes I have my sets already perfect on my team and don't want to change em. Those HMs were devil-made, seriously. Having less places to use them makes me less likely to carry the slaves around and that makes me really happy. <3 Also makes me less likely to run into a rock to use Strength or Rock Smash on without a slave. Those were really annoying. ]:

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Yes, yes I do. It may not create the interaction with the environment we are used to from the past games, but B&W makes up for all that with things like shaking grass, puddles, and dust clouds. The season/weather changes help to change things up too in the environment. Needing only one HM has made the game so much easier and so much better to me. <3

Zerrah.
February 24th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?

I don't really mind the fact that there are less HMs. I mean, the only thing they really did was make getting around in some dungeons a pain. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. And in HGSS it's not like it was hard to find the HMs, they were pretty much handed to you, and I distinctly remember getting three in less than 20 minutes.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Again, in agreement with above, it's fine that we only need one. I'd actually prefer if I didn't have to waste an entire spot on my line-up just so I can cut down a little sprout that is incredibly blocking my path.

fenyx4
February 24th, 2011, 02:32 PM
Some of you may know that in Black and White, only four HMs are given out before the Elite Four, while to beat the main story, you only need one HM - Cut. Adding to that, overall there are only 6 HMs that can be obtained, the second lowest amount that can be obtained in games - with generation 1 having the lowest (5 HMs). On the plus side, you only need one HM slave!

Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?

The idea of less HMs in the games is great, but if most of them aren't even required for game completion, then they might as well revamp the whole "HM" concept and reintroduce TMs like Stealth Rock. At least we only need one HM slave this time around, but it's still annoying when one is trying to train or partake in other activities...

I'm really happy with it, it's incredibly annoying when you have to compromise your pokemon's moveset (or your entire team to include HM slaves) just so it can have some moves which aren't ideal but help you out on the field.

I have never understood why they couldn't just have field moves that are completely separate from battle moves. Makes so much more sense.

This. I actually made 2 Smeargle "HM slaves" (the Japanese equivalent term of Secret Agent is so much better, with a bonus of avoiding negative connotations) in Emerald so I wouldn't have this problem. I tend to rely on the Water-type starters to provide "Surf", but the necessity of HydroPump and Waterfall pose a problem for certain Pokemon. As for Fly, I taught it to Rayquaza in Sapphire and Emerald, but it can be detrimental for slower Pokemon because the opponent essentially gets a free turn to set up.

I contemplated teaching Fly to Charizard in FireRed, but Charizard is offensively oriented in Special Attack, so IMO Air Slash would be a more viable Flying-type attack for battle. I don't know if I'm going to have a Flying-type Pokemon capable of using Fly on my BW team, so there might be a problem for using it to facilitate of traveling... T_T

I agree that field moves should be separated from battle moves, but I wonder how Game Freak would implement this (Key Items?). The exploratory nature they provide is nice, but HMs usually come across as inconveniences instead as they potentially use up move slots and/or party Pokemon slots.

ManhattanTheStarr
February 24th, 2011, 03:11 PM
I LOVE it. Even though I haven't played B/W yet, I am super relieved to hear that HMs have little to no use in these games. Of course I'll still need Fly and Surf, but seeing that Rock Smash is now a TM, and Cut apparently only needs to be used once, it won't really matter. I still have bad memories of Victory Road in D/P/Pt when I needed pretty much EVERY HM (except Cut and Defog) to get through it. I had to RC one of my Pokemon and replace it with an HM slave. T_T

Sydian
February 24th, 2011, 03:17 PM
It makes me happy. I hate HMs so much. They did almost everything this generation, I swear. The only HM I really bother having around with me is Fly, just so I can leave the Great Hall quickly. BUT YEAH. Less importance of HMs is amazing. I was thrilled when I realized I wasn't even using them much when playing.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
February 24th, 2011, 03:55 PM
I don't really have much of an opinion about HM in general but I like the HM moves themselves like Surf and Fly :)

Ink.
February 24th, 2011, 04:50 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Yeah, the moves are pretty crappy as it is, apart from maybe surf and fly.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
No more replacing good moves with crappy HM's, so yeah.

Kyite
February 24th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?

Heck yes! Like everyone stated it gets rid of the HM slaves which allows my team to be nice and well rounded instead of 4-5 being my solid team and the last being useless and me Q_Qing when I have to use em. Personally I like to keep my 6th slot for eggs...(total pokemon breeder). But am a HUGE fan of Fly...one because I'm lazy and I hate back tracking and it helps getting to my berries a lot easier...

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?

I like it to a point, if I remember correctly there was a previous poster that mentioned that the HMs should be taught as just outside moves and possibly use them in contests...but yeah I'd rather have that but I'll be happy with just one HM being used. But Cut really c.c so useless in game in my opinion.

institutions
February 24th, 2011, 05:19 PM
I haven't played B&W yet so I didn't know any of this information.

Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Sounds great! I hate having to keep HM slaves with me everywhere I go.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Yeah, I think it's great. I just wish it were a more useful one like surf, that actually did something decent in battle.

Farelsien
February 24th, 2011, 05:36 PM
It's excellent. For the most part, HMs just wasted a perfectly good move slot/Pokemon slot. They should have done this way back in Gen. 3. They should, in my opinion, do away with HMs and just replace them with key items that have the same effect.

Late
February 24th, 2011, 09:48 PM
HM amount doesn't matter for me but I hate Dive (I think it was because of the speed you could move underwater in R/S/E) and Defog (useless thing).

BenjiTheKid
February 24th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games? Yes. I have honestly felt that HM moves do nothing but take up space. Some of them aren't even good moves. (Cut, Rock Smash, etc.) Of course, before the league, you can fly to the move deleter and make them forget a move and teach new ones. But they still take up space.
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story? Yes. I have never liked that you 'need' HMs to complete a story, anyway. I don't see how they added anything to the game. They don't make it harder, don't make it more strategic... even when I was young, I didn't think it made much sense that you needed HMs to move on.

King Gumball
February 25th, 2011, 12:07 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Since TMs are reusable it doesnt bother me. I mean, it means I wont have to have a spot taken by a HM slave *cough Sanshew cough* but... idk XD I guess it doesn't bother me.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
No. I mean the mapping of Unova was terrible imo. Just having one TM to beat the game doesn't make it seem as... idk it makes it unlike the other pokemon games and makes the landscaping seem bad (wish they made the landscape more like Sinnoh <3 ). You shouldn't need cut to beat the game only. It makes the game unrealistic, like pokemon unrealistic if you know what I mean, and as annoying as HMs were I think it takes away from the pokemon adventure experience. It just makes the story too easy to complete. I would have LOVED some more surf too. But I havent played the game so I can't talk XD

Hiroshi Sotomura
February 25th, 2011, 05:27 AM
Less HMs when compared to recent games is definitely a good thing. They just kept increasing, which meant more moves to teach. It didn't help that it became a necessity, either.

To not even need to use a HM once except to create shortcuts (Champion Road comes to mind) or get to some items / Pokémon is a really good thing. It makes the moves less "important" in the long run, too. (Surf is still useful though, at least.) I've always thought that needing to carry a Pokémon around just to get to a new area all the time was annoying as heck, so to relegate even Surf to getting to optional areas is a boon.

(Totally not on the format bandwagon.)


Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
No. I mean the mapping of Unova was terrible imo. Just having one TM to beat the game doesn't make it seem as... idk it makes it unlike the other pokemon games and makes the landscaping seem bad (wish they made the landscape more like Sinnoh <3 ). You shouldn't need cut to beat the game only. It makes the game unrealistic, like pokemon unrealistic if you know what I mean, and as annoying as HMs were [s-highlight]I think it takes away from the pokemon adventure experience[/s-highlight]. It just makes the story too easy to complete. I would have LOVED some more surf too. But I havent played the game so I can't talk XD

There are people who consider that having so many mandatory HMs, especially in past iterations of Champion Road, already took away from the experience. Having to bring Pokémon who aren't part of your main team and needing to solve puzzles with them, while facing trainers who could potentially slam you, was (for me, I guess) not exactly a pleasant experience.

But wait, you haven't played the game?

Pkmn Trainer Touko
February 25th, 2011, 07:47 AM
I hate HMs! I'm so glad we can get through the game without them! Its such a waste to carry an HM slave Pokemon in my party. The only HM moves that I like are Surf and Fly. But others are such a waste.

I wish they would change the HM method. Instead, our Pokemon should learn abilities at certain levels and those abilities will be usable after certain tasks-like earning a badge. These abilities would not take up a space in your Pokemon's move set. It's more realistic that way anyways. For example, maybe your Pikachu doesn't use flash in battle, but if you were in a cave, he would still be able to flash....

Miss Doronjo
February 25th, 2011, 08:18 AM
Yeah -- I can't tell you how much I love this concept. <3 Honestly, whenever I play Heart Gold, I always have to constantly wonder about which pokemon to use HMs on; like on my Lapras, I'd have to use Whirlpool / Waterfall / Surf / Ice Beam as Lapras's movepool, which I wasn't a big fan of, because Lapras learns a variety of great moves like Thunder. Its also a pain to have to teach someone Cut or Rock Smash; to create some shortcuts. I constantly have to go to my Pokemon PC, get like an oddish or geodude or something, and put one of my pokemon that's actually on my main team, in my box.

So yes, I think its a good thing that you'd only need one HM for the story, because now I can just concentrate on the prefered pokemon that I want on my main team, as opposed on getting an HM slave! And i talso makes me excited for the TMs found too. <3 I can also concentrate on those as well. <3

インフェルノの津波
February 25th, 2011, 08:46 AM
You know this was a pretty good idea, not really needing HMs anymore and when you do now, it's more like a sidequest, and extra requirement really!

So yeah I love this!

Barn
February 25th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Oh thank goodness. I haven't played the game yet so I do hope there are places where we can USE the other HMs - particularly Surf and possibly Waterfall. Surf was my favorite of other HMs, I didn't need to put it on a slave because it was actually useable. I was also hoping that Dive would make a reappearance, but I guess I was wrong. :/

Oh yeah, Fly. I do hope we get that early in the game. When I was playing HGSS it was always a pain to go back and forth between towns when it took forever. :/ Especially if you wanted to show Professor Elm the hatched Togepi.

Evilade
February 27th, 2011, 02:26 PM
I hadn't heard this before, but now that I have;

FYEEEAAAAAAHHHH

Weavile05
February 27th, 2011, 04:39 PM
Oh thank goodness. I haven't played the game yet so I do hope there are places where we can USE the other HMs - particularly Surf and possibly Waterfall. Surf was my favorite of other HMs, I didn't need to put it on a slave because it was actually useable. I was also hoping that Dive would make a reappearance, but I guess I was wrong. :/

Oh yeah, Fly. I do hope we get that early in the game. When I was playing HGSS it was always a pain to go back and forth between towns when it took forever. :/ Especially if you wanted to show Professor Elm the hatched Togepi.

You do get Dive, but I think it might be Post-E4, and not required to progress through the storyline. It's mainly just a way to get some extra items and such.

And Fly is in the game, but of course not required to progress through the game. Most people will probably use it quite heavily though.

Adam.
February 28th, 2011, 08:02 AM
I'm glad the game isn't heavily HM based because it was kind of a pain having to use certain Pokemon or take away certain moves just for those darn things...

shinx12345
February 28th, 2011, 09:27 AM
I like the idea of less HM's, but I am disappointed to think that when I first got Pokemon ruby, I thought that cut was great because it hurt water Pokemon my blaziken couldn't hit otherwise.
Doesn't it suck to notice that you had more fun with Pokemon when you didn't know how to play it properly?

MrGriszell
March 1st, 2011, 12:37 AM
I hope they have a lesser role in the future

soϲks
March 1st, 2011, 02:57 AM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games? Yes. I've always seen HMs as like a restriction rather than something that adds to the game - sure, you can go flounder about in dark caves now, but at the cost of a moveslot on a Pokemon that you either caught and put in your team just for that move or it just wastes a moveslot on a more valuable Pokemon that you might have been training. The only "redeemable" HMs that are actually useful insofar as battling are Surf and Waterfall, imo. Perhaps if the rest of the HMs were more viable moves I'd be more willing to teach them to my main party members, but until then HMs just force me to use slots up for HM slaves that I don't want to use or catch, but I need to.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story? Yes, again. Like I said, HMs are more of a restriction than anything - and I'm glad that we aren't forced to go through more than is necessary.

Sully
March 1st, 2011, 04:51 AM
I like less emphasis on the HM's. It makes the games tons easier(:

Elite Overlord LeSabre™
March 1st, 2011, 05:06 AM
With the urban setting of Unova, this move makes more sense because there will be fewer natural obstacles to move. It's also easier on those like me who don't use a dedicated HM slave because that means fewer HM moves spread out over my team of six.

It's not that I don't like the concept of HM's, it's that the majority of HM moves are fair to terrible. Having to waste fewer moveslots on subpar moves is always a good move.

Alternative
March 1st, 2011, 05:48 AM
I like that there aren't as much HMs as the previous games, which is a major improvement from the other games. I mean you don't want to be having 2 different HM slaves just because every single move is necessary.

Although, I'm breaking away from the crowd and saying that I think it was a bad idea to only make one HM (Cut) actually needed to get through the game. Caves generally have boulders which need Strength to push, and there are lots of water routes which need Surf to navigate, and those two HMs have been the biggest stone in Pokemon which are needed for getting through a game. If anything, at least have those two HMs needed to complete the main story of Black and White.

Cyb3r0t4ku
March 1st, 2011, 06:05 AM
I think they should get rid of HMs from the move pool and have to be ability you can teach your pokemon to use outside of battles.
For example your charizard can have the ability to fly and cut down trees outside of battle while its inbattle movepool could be 1flamethrower.2. wing attack.3. firespin 4. steel wing
or maybe aply those abilites to an attack for example you can smash rocks(rock smash) with steel wing, or remove trees(cut) with flamethrower. move boulders with takle, takedown etc(strength)
but make it so that even tho snorlaxs tackle can move boulders a pidgys tackle would be inaffective.

. an example your milotic can carry you while swiming in the water because its a water type but not know the move surf.

I totally agree - sometimes a HM takes the place of a potential 'decent' move and to get rid of them from the pool would create some much needed space. Plus it would make more sense, as you said, to have the relevant HM assigned to a pokemon or a certain type of pokemon.

However I think this would compromise the choice of which pokemon to have in your party as you would need a pokemon that could learn 'flamethrower', for example, in order to destroy trees although this may not be your preferred choice of pokemon to have in your party.

I liked how B/W toned HM usage down - I think it makes the game flow a bit smoother.

sshadow
March 2nd, 2011, 08:18 PM
Well I liked it for the most part in some of the past games I felt forced to use all of the HMs.
But I would of like just alittle bit more for surf. you do need it to do the extra stuff after you beat the game though.

Astinus
March 2nd, 2011, 11:00 PM
Well, this is good news. Needing to switch around my Pokemon just to have a necessary move to continue the storyline was certainly a PITA. I learned to play through Pearl with four or less Pokemon because I always had two HM-dedicated Pokemon in my team. This was especially frustrating towards the end of the game where I would have liked to use more of the Pokemon options given to me, but couldn't. Or when part of my team has to be boxed until I get through a certain area, like Victory Road.

There's also the fact that the moves taught by the HMs were horrible to use outside of the regular game. For me personally, I also found that at a certain point, the HM moves didn't work in in-game battles, so they just sat on my Pokemon, taking up a slot because there was no way that I would remove them in the case that I needed the move again.

Really, the only HM that I found useful in the game was Fly. Both in the game's plot and battles, Surf was my favorite HM because of how good the move was. To not have all the HMs be necessary to complete the game's plot is a good thing. It means that I can actually plan a fifth member of my Unova team.

lamby101
March 3rd, 2011, 01:58 AM
I'm pretty happy, it did get annoying having to either have a HM slave, or when you got to an obstacle, having to either go back to your pc to fetch a pokemon that knew the HM or to teach a pokemon in your party that you and overwrite a move you preferably would have kept.

I understand what people are saying when they say they see HMs as markers or milestones. But why can't they just use the storyline to unblock the barricades you always come across in these games? As in, once you beat X you can get through for example.

Porygon Z
March 3rd, 2011, 05:39 AM
Well, it's good just because you have to keep a Patrat up to? Driftveil City? Then it will be useless. But, the other HMs do a good chunk of damage.
Cut: 50
Fly: 70
Surf: 95
Strength: 80
Waterfall: 80
Dive: 80
They're not that bad, I have at least Fly and Surf in my team, always.

bwburke94
March 3rd, 2011, 05:46 AM
The thing with Fly is that it takes two turns, which in single battles allows Leftovers recovery and another turn of Toxic stalling. However, if the flyer or opponent has No Guard, or it's a double battle...

Regeneration
March 3rd, 2011, 05:46 AM
It's good to have less emphasis on HMs; I like it. It reduces the burden of either having an HM slave or being forced to replace valuable move slots with crappy moves like Defog, Cut, etc.

bayant
March 3rd, 2011, 06:06 AM
for me, less hms mean more good moves.

Tsundera
March 4th, 2011, 02:28 PM
It would have been a lot more practical to just keep the HMs as they were (and/or introducing new ones) and implement a portable PC system that you could utilise on-the-go. I like the concept and diversity of the HMs but it is a real pain when you have to sacrifice party slots for HM-specific pokémon. It's like playing Ocarina of Time all over again [having to pause the game over and over to change equipment].

DarkVhozon
March 4th, 2011, 03:11 PM
Yes I hate having to have HM, moves, espically since they usually suck and I have to set aside a whole slot or two on my team for a slave. That was a problem D/P/Pt had, 7 HM's is too many

Shinjiaoki94
March 15th, 2011, 02:25 PM
How about HM Surf and Fly, Rock Climb and Waterfell? They're pretty useful, aren't they?

レイジングブラスト
March 15th, 2011, 02:39 PM
I'm glad they finally made a game where you don't have to worry about swapping in an HM slave and having one of your teammates miss valuable experience. I just realized that you could actually beat the whole main game without using any HM's.

olih
March 15th, 2011, 03:01 PM
I'm really glad they changed the HMs. I hate HMs, not a lot of them are poweful moves, and they just take up space in my Pokemon's moveset. I think it's awesome that less emphasis is placed on HMs. Thank you Game Freak!

solarowl
March 15th, 2011, 03:36 PM
The less use of HMs is awesome. No more HM slaves holding my team back.
But I still use some HMs like surf and fly, they're useful outside and in battle.

Dakota
March 15th, 2011, 03:47 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Quite honestly, I really don't care. I mean, there will always be one poor Pokemon that we shall dubb "HM Slave", and I myself prep for that.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Ehhh, to be honest, I like it. It allows you to be flexible with your movepools and less stress will be put on the need for a Pokemon to know a certain move.

CoffeeWolf
March 15th, 2011, 07:17 PM
I like it... except i really think that surf should be required =/
Pokemon games need that annoying surf to an island

Yusshin
March 15th, 2011, 07:23 PM
I believe Strength is required to get through Dragon Spiral Castle >>

but I like how they're not emphasized anymore. Though they should just be TMs if it's like that.

Livewire
March 15th, 2011, 08:24 PM
I love that we don't have to totally rely on them anymore, HMs were obnoxious. (Flash in particular)

Geras32
March 15th, 2011, 08:33 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
I honestly don't really care. I think I might be one of the only people who never used an HM slave. Like many people have said, I think there should be better HM moves you would actually want in a moveset.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Yes. I never liked the necessity of HMs for story, but i did like the need of them for free exploration. They should be given post-game.

.-Notched
March 15th, 2011, 09:05 PM
Some of you may know that in Black and White, only four HMs are given out before the Elite Four, while to beat the main story, you only need one HM - Cut. Adding to that, overall there are only 6 HMs that can be obtained, the second lowest amount that can be obtained in games - with generation 1 having the lowest (5 HMs). On the plus side, you only need one HM slave!

Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
1. Of course. Back in Gen III, on m Emerald, I had two different HM slaves. And it wasn't fun. I fixed this a little in HeartGold, but I still had one.

2. Indeed! Not such of a hassle to find an HM that you need to complete the story, ESPECIALLY when looking for...I suppose.... HM 02 FLY! Seriously, it'd take me forever to go between towns to find the HM.

Destiny.
March 15th, 2011, 09:16 PM
I have always hated the overreliance on HMs (with the exception of Surf, of course). In the older games, HMs dealt a reasonable amount of damage considering how powerless most attacks were. My most detested HM, was of course flash which basically did nothing... I still dislike Fly. At least Surf can OHKO most of the time.

Eurydice
March 15th, 2011, 09:21 PM
i really dislike hms because they greatly annoy me so them getting rid of needing them all the time is great i hated using up an attack space for an hm so now i just needed a pokemon for cut the one time and that is all

Elric of Grans
March 15th, 2011, 10:29 PM
I always hated HMs, so I am certainly not complaining, but I feel they went about it the wrong way. Rather than de-emphasising them, merely making them more appealing would have solved the problem. No one complains about Surf or Waterfall, do they? If Strength were to, say, raise your Attack stat, I think people would be far happier with it. If Cut were more like Grass Knot/Low Kick (essentially, something that scales up as you move through the game), it would be an excellent attack for Normal-types. Simply changing the moves to they are no longer a handicap solves the original problem.

Sammuthegreat
March 16th, 2011, 02:59 AM
I've never understood the concept of HMs. I mean, why should a Braviary - an eagle, which spends its entire life flying - need to be "taught" to Fly? It's ridiculous. Similarly, why should my Darmanitan, who's definitely strong enough to push rocks around, need a certain move to actually do so? Why should a jellyfish like my Jellicent need to be taught to swim?! It just doesn't make any sense.

So yeah. I'm very pleased that HMs are less important in Black and White. I think they can go a step further and completely abolish HMs though. I'm all for keeping out-of-battle moves, though. A Charizard should automatically be able to Fly/Cut or burn down trees etc... Maybe it would make sense to make the badges act like "licences" whereby they are a sign that the trainer is ready and allowed to use unsafe manoeuvres like riding on a Pokemon's back outside of battle. That would retain the exploration aspect of the HMs, while not taking up valuable moveset slots - and it would make the game far more believable, given that Pokemon are able to do what they should naturally be able to do - like swim, fly, push boulders - without needing to be taught.

It could even be linked to their stats. A Pokemon with a high enough Speed stat could be used as a Bicycle. A Pokemon with a high enough Attack could push boulders around, etc. But all these abilities would be out-of-battle abilities only, so there's no need to waste a move slot on something terrible like Defog.

D0N3GAN
March 26th, 2011, 08:16 AM
I do like that there is less use of HM's in Black & White, but only needing to use Cut like once is not enough. I would have thought there would be a route with water which you needed Surf and a few boulders needing to be push here and there via Strength.

Phototoxin
March 26th, 2011, 09:17 AM
I'm not keen on HM's as they tend to gimp your team and force selection of certain pokes. I'm glad that cut is required only once or twice. However I did find strength useful in some caves. I hope that this follows a trend whereby HM's are reduced to the bare essentials.

Pebblycone
April 3rd, 2011, 04:47 AM
I actually forget about them alot now that there is less emphasis :P
I only remember they exist when I see the odd boulder or tree, and then Im like:
"Oh..... they still have those?" xP

I've never understood the concept of HMs. I mean, why should a Braviary - an eagle, which spends its entire life flying - need to be "taught" to Fly? It's ridiculous. Similarly, why should my Darmanitan, who's definitely strong enough to push rocks around, need a certain move to actually do so? Why should a jellyfish like my Jellicent need to be taught to swim?! It just doesn't make any sense.


You have a very valid point... and I also lol'd at your very frank comments :P

Pkmn Trainer Touko
April 3rd, 2011, 05:00 AM
I've never understood the concept of HMs. I mean, why should a Braviary - an eagle, which spends its entire life flying - need to be "taught" to Fly? It's ridiculous. Similarly, why should my Darmanitan, who's definitely strong enough to push rocks around, need a certain move to actually do so? Why should a jellyfish like my Jellicent need to be taught to swim?! It just doesn't make any sense.

So yeah. I'm very pleased that HMs are less important in Black and White. I think they can go a step further and completely abolish HMs though. I'm all for keeping out-of-battle moves, though. A Charizard should automatically be able to Fly/Cut or burn down trees etc... Maybe it would make sense to make the badges act like "licences" whereby they are a sign that the trainer is ready and allowed to use unsafe manoeuvres like riding on a Pokemon's back outside of battle. That would retain the exploration aspect of the HMs, while not taking up valuable moveset slots - and it would make the game far more believable, given that Pokemon are able to do what they should naturally be able to do - like swim, fly, push boulders - without needing to be taught.

It could even be linked to their stats. A Pokemon with a high enough Speed stat could be used as a Bicycle. A Pokemon with a high enough Attack could push boulders around, etc. But all these abilities would be out-of-battle abilities only, so there's no need to waste a move slot on something terrible like Defog.

That's literally exactly my idea for HMs!!!!!!! I've been wishing for this forever!

Seriously, I say we all write to Game Freak with this idea!

I'm really glad that there is a less need for HMs in this game. But instead of getting rid of the challenge of needing certain HMs, they should just go with this concept.

Pidgeotto
April 3rd, 2011, 07:43 AM
I didn't think I'd like it at first, but I'm also playing through HeartGold now, and I find that I'm generally annoyed that I need an HM slave with me.

So, I'm happy about it.

Clairissa
April 3rd, 2011, 10:19 AM
I love the more infrequent use of HMs, most, other than surf, strength or waterfall, I did not like using simply because they took up a move slot and were rather weak moves to begin with.

Krovvy
April 3rd, 2011, 10:45 AM
I don't really mind. Some HMs in the previous games were kind of a chore. It has the important ones (Fly, Surf, Strength), and that's all that matters.

Braeden23000
April 3rd, 2011, 10:51 AM
It didn't really change much, instead of having to beat a gym to get a rock out of your way, you need to beat a gym to move a person out of your way. So its just as limited on where you can go. They didn't remove any useful HMs, so it didn't change any move pools or anything. But I do like how I don't need more than one HM slave, so I guess I like the lack of HM's.

Scraggiland
April 3rd, 2011, 11:08 AM
I like how there is less use of HM's within Pokémon Black and White, saves having a HM slave in my party.
Though HM's are not needed in this generation, well HM01 Cut is early on. I've found myself teaching them to my Pokémon, the Flying type learns Fly, the Water type learns Surf and each time I've taught my Scraggy and Darmanitan Strength. I've also had my Watchog use Cut in battle during the first part of the games.

Red Scizor
April 3rd, 2011, 12:57 PM
It didnt bother me.

But more required usage of HMs also doesnt bother me..

I'm content with both.

blakeg
April 3rd, 2011, 05:05 PM
What they should do is get rid of Hms they could do what they did with rocksmash, flash, sweet scent sinse Tms now have infinite use. Make the gym leader give it to you when you beat them as the TM.

Just a field move. It allows expoloration and doesnt require a HM slave. And they can help in battle as well as being replacable. :)

The_Noob
April 3rd, 2011, 05:09 PM
I found it kind of weird how they redid the Strength Rocks and Smashable Rocks.

Noob out.

Nakuzami
April 3rd, 2011, 05:20 PM
1) Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
2) Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?

1) Oddly, I don't like it when we don't have to use as many HMs. Don't ask me why, because I really don't know.

2) Actually, I didn't even notice this. I didn't realize you only needed to use Cut near the Dreamyard for the entire freaking storyline. It does make sense, but I just used other HMs like Strength and Surf anyway. I loved being able to Dive underwater again, though i've only done it once.

Also, I loved how the new Strength boulders looked. They actually looked like boulders that might block your path instead of little pebbles that you shouldn't have to use a specific move on to move them. I haven't seen any Rock Smash rocks...at all. Where the freak are they?

Volcom22
April 3rd, 2011, 07:11 PM
It really doesn't bother me now not having a HM slave in my party when I travel around.

danno 507
April 4th, 2011, 02:46 AM
I love this feature! Having to give an HM to a pokemon just to continue the story was really annoying! I may not want them to use the attack and when the want to learn a really good move later on i cnt get rid of the hm untill much later so bye bye good move :(
It was especialy annoying when they started bringing out new HMs like rock smash and rockslide, just made it ten times worse!

nchlzk
April 4th, 2011, 03:09 AM
I don't like most of the HMs because they are usually really weak. I thought the concept of a HM slave just reduces the potential of your team significantly. But considering how most people only carry 3 pokemon, having one out of 6 slots go to waste isn't much of a problem i guess.

I like how once you move a rock with strength you don't need to move it again though.

A Charizard should automatically be able to Fly/Cut or burn down trees etc... Maybe it would make sense to make the badges act like "licences" whereby they are a sign that the trainer is ready and allowed to use unsafe manoeuvres like riding on a Pokemon's back outside of battle. That would retain the exploration aspect of the HMs, while not taking up valuable moveset slots - and it would make the game far more believable, given that Pokemon are able to do what they should naturally be able to do - like swim, fly, push boulders - without needing to be taught.

It could even be linked to their stats. A Pokemon with a high enough Speed stat could be used as a Bicycle. A Pokemon with a high enough Attack could push boulders around, etc. But all these abilities would be out-of-battle abilities only, so there's no need to waste a move slot on something terrible like Defog.

This is actually a very good idea though. :D

Mahtale
April 4th, 2011, 04:00 AM
While I realize the purpose of HMs, I've always hated them. I am glad that they've experimented with reducing their importance in this game, and I hope that they will continue this trend. I think it takes away from some of the "creativity" in forming a team when you have to drag around one or two "HM Slave Pokemon" in order to navigate through the routes to the next city. I know that you can store your HM Slaves in the PC until you need them, but it's often when you're already deep into a route that you realize you need them.

Ciz
April 4th, 2011, 04:11 AM
I find Fly and Surf only the most useful in all HMs, cause i make them a part of my movesets (Fly for my Flying type, and Surf for one type available).

This has an advantage for people wont have to worry too much about HM Slaves. In the previous generations, you need to surf to get to the required island with a gym, or cut through a hedge to get to a city, and even scale walls and waterfalls to get certain items for evolving and battling.

Maybe GameFreak already realized that. :))))))

mprinz
April 4th, 2011, 09:13 AM
i missed dive, form emerald, but in the game its not very usefull like in old ones

Cherrim
April 4th, 2011, 07:03 PM
I hate HMs so I was thrilled when I realized I only needed one or two to comfortably play the main story. n_n; Now if only they were made into regular moves that could be overwritten, I'd be happy.

It was kind of annoying when I hit the endgame and realized I'd need to drop one of my party Pokémon in order to get around comfortably (waterfall, surf). Could have been worse though. :[

Sarcastic Prince
April 5th, 2011, 01:56 AM
Yeah, 'cause I hate having HM slaves in my team.

Doppelgänger
April 5th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Do you like the idea of less HMs than in other recent games?
Totally. I hate HM's.

Along with that, do you think it's a good thing that you only need one HM to complete the story?
Yes, it makes everything easier.(Except I do think that you need both Fly and Surf...)