Your strongest CMF argument might already be in your application.
But if it is buried or hard to connect to the evaluation criteria, the analyst may miss it.
A strong CMF application is not only about having good material but also making that material easy to evaluate.
The analyst should not have to search through long paragraphs to find your strongest argument. They should not have to guess which section a point belongs to. They should not have to reverse-engineer why a feature matters.
Your job is to make the best version of your project easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to score.
Use the evaluation criteria as your structure
One of the simplest ways to improve a CMF application is to mirror the evaluation criteria in your document.
If the rubric asks about originality, make the section about originality.
If the rubric asks about user experience and interactivity, keep that section focused on what the player does, feels, and controls.
This may sound obvious, but it is a common place where applications get messy.
A gameplay paragraph may contain an originality argument.
A lore paragraph may contain a user experience argument.
Those points may be valuable, but if they are in the wrong place, the analyst has to do extra work to find and evaluate them.
Use each criterion in the rubric as section headings. Keep each section focused. Put the argument where the evaluation criteria tells the analyst to look.
Start each section with the main claim
A common mistake is starting each section with too much background.
The applicant warms up slowly. They explain context. They describe the genre. They list features. Then, somewhere near the middle or end, the strongest point finally appears.
That is risky.
Each section should start with a clear claim.
Then you can support that claim with examples.
A useful structure is:
- Claim
- Example
- Why it matters
For example:
Claim: “The project’s originality comes from connecting farming choices directly to defensive strategy.”
Example: “The crops players choose to grow affect the tools, towers, or strategies available during defense.”
Why it matters: “This makes preparation and survival part of the same core loop, creating a distinct player experience.”
That is much easier to evaluate than a long paragraph where the claim only becomes clear at the end.
Use direct language
Direct language belongs in a CMF application.
It may feel too obvious while you are writing, but obvious is often helpful when someone is evaluating your project against a rubric.
Use phrases like:
- “This supports originality because…”
- “This improves the player experience by…”
- “This increases replayability because…”
- “This reduces risk by…”
- “This supports commercial potential by…”
- “This matters to the target audience because…”
These phrases are not fancy, but they are effective.
They tell the analyst how your project connects directly to the rubric.
They are especially useful when a section risks becoming a list of features instead of an argument.
For example, compare these two sentences:
“The game includes multiple crop types, enemy behaviours, and tower combinations.”
“The variety of crop types, enemy behaviours, and tower combinations increases replayability because each run asks the player to adapt their defensive strategy instead of repeating the same solution.”
The second version is easier to evaluate because it explains the connection between the design and the result.
Repeat your strongest ideas with purpose
Repetition is a powerful tool in a CMF application. Use it!
If your project has one or two major strengths, the analyst should see those strengths more than once. A strong application does not mention the core argument once and hope it sticks. It reinforces it from different angles.
Think of it like hitting the same nail several times.
For example, if your strongest argument is that your farming mechanics directly shape the player’s defensive strategy, that idea might appear in several sections:
- In the originality section, it shows how the project differs from familiar genre expectations.
- In the user experience section, it shows what the player actually does and feels.
- In the commercial potential section, it may help explain the project’s market positioning.
The core idea is repeated, but the purpose changes depending on the section.
Use supporting material strategically
Supporting material can help a CMF application greatly, but they only allow visual content with little to no text.
An art bible can help explain art direction.
A diagram can help explain a complex gameplay loop.
A short gameplay clip can help explain interactivity.
But supporting material should not create more work for the analyst.
Do not add extra documents just to make the application feel bigger or to show that you've thought of everything.
Please, do not add your game design document as supporting material!
Supporting material should reduce confusion, not add more things to evaluate.