So it comes as no surprise that when offered the chance to combine my love of emerging technology with some sort of competition, I’m, um, game. Enter: social gaming.

Social gaming is the use of social media for competition. You’ve seen it already: games built on social media platforms (Farmville, Mafia Wars), social media platforms with game layers (Foursquare, Whrrl), and games built on their own platforms (SCVNGR).

Completing a SCVNGR Trek Activity. Noooooorm!

Last week I had the opportunity to try SCVNGR at the AdClub’s Hatch Trek, a hunt around the city of Boston, culminating in a cocktail hour to introduce the judges for the 50th Hatch Awards. My partner in hunting, John Park, and I moved through the city, completing certain tasks and answering trivia questions.

The team over at Allen & Gerritsen have put together a great recap of what SCVNGR does well and what it does poorly but here’s my quick summary: It was a great way to learn about the city, showcase the event sponsors (each stop had a tie in to a sponsor), and get out on a nice (albeit muggy) evening in Boston. The problem is when it came to announcing a winner. John and I completed every task, answering all trivia questions. But if we didn’t type in the answer exactly as the administrator expected us to, it would lock us out after a few tries. And while I was on a team, there was no real way to connect John’s SMS interaction with the system and my iPhone app based interaction.

These points seem minor. And they were. Like I say, we had a lot of fun and eventually ended up at the cocktail hour to network and enjoy some post-game refreshments. But even these small flaws in the system highlight something important about social gaming: it’s still a game. I mean, I wanted to have fun…but I also wanted to win an iPad.

We’ve already seen plenty of discussion about how platforms like Foursquare are working against “cheaters.” The CEO of SCVNGR, Seth Priebatsch, spoke at TEDxBoston 2010 last week and said that “the previous decade was about social, this one is about gaming.” He’s probably right – just take a look at Google’s recent acquisition of Slide.

People are competitive. They like a challenge. In fact, the reason some Apple Stores were built with a false floor is because once someone takes a step on to the six inch incline at the entrance to the store, they want to complete that challenge and come all the way in. But with competition comes other problems. I hope Priebatsch is right and we’re about to see a huge expansion in the social gaming sector. I’m extremely curious to see how these problems get worked out.

Last week’s unfittingly named MITX event “To Check In or Not To Check In?” provided some insight as it featured representatives from three location based services working their way through the LBS ecosystem. I say the event wasn’t properly named only because the question being answered wasn’t “should I check in?” or even “should I use an LBS as a marketer?” Rather, the discussion focused on which services were best and how to leverage them effectively.

The panelists themselves were informative, and Allen & Gerritsen‘s Mike Schneider did a good job directing the conversation (though, with the exception of Yelp‘s Leighann Farrelly, everyone was tweeting while sitting on stage – rather distracting). Perhaps the most poignant thing said, however, came from an audience member (whose name I do not remember, unfortunately). The discussion was revolving around how venues or brands can use an LBS to engage their consumer base when this gentleman pointed out that “nothing beats face to face engagement.” Seems rather obvious. But then again, here we were, talking about how to leverage digital visitors to real stores.

Phil Thomas DiGiulio from Pegshot noted that every brand has a story to tell, and telling that story is what brings brands and venues face to face with customers. But I’d argue that the beauty behind the location based service is that it provides the complete opposite: now consumers can tell the story the way they see it. Here’s another way we can start to build brand advocates or tap into the insight our consumers are providing.

At the beginning of the session I tweeted, saying that I had yet to see any sort of true differentiation between most location based services. But by the end, there were obvious stand outs: Pegshot lets users tell their story via photos, Yelp lets users tell their story via text reviews, and – as Mike pointed out – Foursquare lets marketers decide how consumers will tell their story via the API (I’m sorry to say, but the fourth panelist, Wayne Sutton from TriOut, has yet to convince me of its unique value).

Afterwards, I approached Pegshot’s Phil (who, it turns out, is a die hard Philly sports fan – win!). I told him that I’m taking my iPhone out when I walk into the restaurant, but I’m only going to open one– maybe two apps. How does he make sure one of them is his? He responded that they need to have a good answer for that question, but that he hoped his user experience trumped what others could do. We’ll see. I really like Pegshot, so I hope he wins.

In the months since my first LBS blog post, I’ve slowed my Foursquare use significantly. I still use it at venues where mayorship may provide value (discounts at Starbucks and WholeFoods). But for the most part, I’ve turned to other services (Whrrl, Foodspotting, Pegshot) because they let me share more than just “I’m here!” They let me tell a story.