Game developers have no excuse for not including a "save when you want" option. It's even green -- I hate leaving a system on because I need to go out but don't want to lose my progress. That system is sucking power that it otherwise wouldn't if I could just save my game and turn the damn thing off. 

I second that frustration with Dead Rising. I loved that game, but the bathroom/save points were spaced WAY too far apart and were often patrolled by super-zombies (by the super-cranberries, if you were wondering). I hope the 'Westernized' Dead Rising 2 eliminates this issue.

In short, I'll hold Capcom down while you work the body, Brett.

@Jason: I like that thinking. "Save your game, save the planet!"

I've always been baffled as to why developers sometimes refuse to let us save whenever we want. Do they not want us to finish their games? If so, then they've no doubt succeeded, as I bet many gamers have been driven to doing just that.

The least they could do is implement a suspend feature. It's no replacement for the save anywhere option, but it would at least prevent the loss of our progress.

There must be some reason that Capcom continues to do this. Perhaps their Board Members have not played a game since the arcade and thought they could save money on the budget by taking out the save features? 

Nice work, Brett. Let's pray someone is listening at Capcom.

Capcom isn't the only one. This is more like a retro-history example. Remember the old Battletoads by Rare on the NES? Sure, it didn't feature long-45-minute-levels, but it was one of the toughest games ever. The original Ninja Gaiden was a pain --if you died enough times you had to start from scratch. Oh yeah, of course Mega Man is another, but I don't really have anything against that. You can always boost up 1ups.

This is wag our finger at Capcom week :)

I disagree that auto-saves should be more frequent, or completely removed in favor of user controlled saves.  Letting the user save whenever they want can detract from the experience, and make potentially hard parts of the game a breeze if only through trial and error.

I understand that investing an hour or so into a game can be hard, but i wouldn't characterize RE5 as a "pick-up and play" style game that is meant to be played in small chunks.

I know I'm going to get flak for this, but its such a specifically Japanese "thing" to restrict our saving.  It's such a huge part of what they don't "get" about Western game design that it's contributing to the death of Eastern game design.  That sounds harsh.  I'm not saying Eastern design has to completely conform to Western, but I don't believe horribly restrictive save functions and punishing mechanics are intrinsic to Eastern design.  They need to find their own way to evolve without conforming.

@Jason: As usual, I agree 100%.  

I hate the argument that leaving saving up to the player's discretion potentially makes games "too easy."  So what?  That's what settings are for; if you don't like it, don't take advantage of it.  I can't appreciate a game if I'm too pissed off to even put up with it.  I shouldn't even have to "put up" with a game -- saving needs to be abolished as an element of design.  It's a function (and an inherent one at that) and it should aid me, not restrict me, from experiencing a game.

Thank you, Brett.  I hope someone -- anyone -- from Capcom hears this.  RE5, Dead Rising, Lost Planet -- all games I tried and put down because I simply can't be bothered to put up with their BS.  I have jobs to find, people to meet, things to see, other games to play, shows and movies to watch, books to read........

@ Kyle: I think you're seeing things through a very hardcore/purist lens. Game saves should be customizable to meet the needs of different types of players. Players should be able to opt for a game's regular save-scheme or customize their own, even if it ends up "taking away" from a certain aspect of the game-play experience the developers were somehow shooting for by "strategically" placing save points. Everyone should be able to experience games at their own pace. Not being able to do it just seems like backwards thinking to me. 

@Kyle "I disagree that auto-saves should be more frequent, or completely removed in favor of user controlled saves.  Letting the user save whenever they want can detract from the experience, and make potentially hard parts of the game a breeze if only through trial and error."

So, you just leave your system on when you can't save and it's time for bed, to go out to dinner or meet friends, or go to work (or school)? You don't want to be able to save and turn your system off, save electricity, and not worry about it being on for so long? 

Seriously, the wonky save system is the only reason I played two days straight of Resident Evil 5 with my uncle. We would always be afraid that our past accomplishments would be gone when we turned off the PS3, because of a checkpoint that took us back an hour of play.

There's a perfect solution to the issue of allowing players to save anywhere, anytime without making the system exploitable. I'm reminded because of Aaron's Demon's Souls post -- it's the "save and quit" option.

You get one save file that is overwritten whenever you want to quit the game. When you load, you'll be exactly where you left off, but you can't game the save system in order to prevent feeling the consequences for failure.

'Demon's Souls' is the new ' Spies vs Mercenaries.' Zing! ; )

I'll be frank - I didn't mind not saving in Lost in Nightmares. The checkpoints are well-spaced to prevent you from losing too much progress as you play and the entire level should take less than an hour, even on Professional.

What I wasn't so thrilled about is no saving in Desperate Escape. THAT level is much longer, the checkpoints are further apart, and I've lost two playthroughs because of network disconnects.

A suspend feature on a console -- brilliant! If handhelds can do it, why not consoles?

Some kind of suspend feature does seem to be the perfect solution all-round, doesn't it? The only question is why has it taken this long for someone to think of it?