Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
I'm a huge fan of the Limited Resources podcast. Even if I'm taking a season off of playing Limited, I listen to LR every single week. It's even the first podcast on my subscription list!
Marshall and Brian have an approach to the game that really resonates with me: level-headed, reasonable, constructive, easy-going, all with the goal of winning as much Magic as possible. If more players took such a pragmatic attitude toward the game, the MTG community would be much better off—and much more competitive.
Limited Resources, of course, is a great name for a podcast, which is why I was so disappointed to see this:
Don't get me wrong. I was excited to see this, too. Brian Wong is great, but Jon Loucks has been sorely missed and it's cool to get him back into the podcasting world. This podcast promises to be a favorite before long, and I wouldn't be surprised if it inspired me to play a bit more Constructed.
But the name. Constructed Resources? I mean, I understand Marshall's trying to build a brand and everything, but Limited Resources is a great name because it's actually a phrase used outside of MTG. Not so with Constructed Resources.
My first thought for a better name was Constructed Criticism, but it seems somebody else already had that first thought... about 57 episodes ago. Who knew?
Still, there are so many rich double meanings LR/CR could have mined. How about:
- Constructed Proof
- Constructed Logic
- Constructed Opinion
- Constructed Language
- Constructed Culture
- Constructed Environment
- Constructed Analysis
- Constructed Engagement
- Constructed Living
Maybe a pun based on "constructed" or "constructive" isn't even the best option. Some other names that might have worked:
- Limited by Nothing
- Standard Procedures (they are going to be focusing mainly on Standard, after all)
- Unlimited Resources
- Standards for Standard
- The Sutcliffe/Loucks Power Hour
- Limited Schlimited
These names might not be winners, but I don't really think Constructed Resources is, either. While I have no doubt the podcast will be highly entertaining, educational, and professional, I am saddened that Marshall and Jon didn't next-level us with a multi-layered name that took some serious thought to unpack. I guess we'll just have to console ourselves with the high-quality content these guys will record moving forward. Life is hard.
Promising that the only criticism so far is that the name “could be better”. Hopefully the content is as good as LRCast.
Agreed on both counts!
Limited resources is also a white enchantment from exodus
Excellent point. There are so many layers to the LR name, and CR is just not at the same level.
Was just going to point that out, all names suggested in the article aren’t magic cards, to me that’d be enough to rule them out. I like “Standardize” if they would be focusing on Standard Constructed (I’m not familiar with either podcast).
The name might not be the coolest… But another podcast by Sutcliff and Loucks! Rejoice! I’ll have to add that to my list and give it a listen today. Unlimited resources, or the Sutcliff Louckes Power Hour would be sweet indeed, but having the name tie in to their other cast is understandable.
I just hope they don’t start with, “We are your Constructed Resources… (Canned laughter)”.
I like standard procedures, and another cast could be modern developments
If the podcast had been named any of those things, I would not have noticed it on iTunes. By calling it Constructed Resources, they building on the good recognition and reputation Marshall has built into the Limited Resources brand, and that’s a really good moves. Honestly, the only good name involving constructed has criticism and that was taken, so none of those names are worth giving up the name recognition.
Outstanding post but I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Cheers!