  (arXiv abridged abstract) In the last two decades, videogames have evolved in
a nearly explosive way from the pixelated graphics to today's near-realistic 3D
environments. The interaction devices traditionally used in videogames have not
evolved with the same intensity, but recent HCI studies have explored
biofeedback interaction - the explicit manipulation of a person's physiological
data as input to a system - as an alternative to them. Traditional biofeedback
prototypes apply 1 sensor to each game mechanic (unimodality).
  In this dissertation, we introduce the combination of 2 physiological sensors
simultaneously per game mechanic (multimodality) and present a First-Person
Shooter game comprised of 8 game mechanics with three interaction flavours (no
biofeedback/vanilla, unimodal and multimodal). An empirical study with 32
regular players was employed to explore and study differences between the three
interaction types and where they can be best employed.
  Players compared the three games in terms of Fun, Ease of Use, Originality,
Playability and Favourite Condition. For the sake of completeness, other
evaluation methods were used as well: IMI Questionnaire, keywords association
and open-ended commentaries. The vanilla version was considered easier to use,
but both biofeedback versions were considered the most fun. Both versions were
praised differently: the unimodal version for its simplicity of use, and the
multimodal for its realism, activation safety of game mechanics and depth added
to the game. Our conclusion is that multimodal biofeedback can have a relevant
impact in terms of added depth, depending on the way it is used inside the
game. On a boundary case, it can be used to increase the feeling of empowerment
on the player when using certain abilities, or to intentionally make in-game
actions more difficult by demanding more physical effort from the player.
