We've discussed ideas like these before, and while we haven't ruled them out, we're just in no position to implement them any time soon. And before anyone says how simple it would be, I'll remind them that ideas are ALWAYS simple on paper.
To address the alternate opinion idea, I just want to say that two opinions equal
twice the subjectivity, not some kind of magically balancing
objectivity. And as has been noted, we try to address issues of subjectivity in the reviews, which is rarely present in second opinions.
Then there are credibility factors - our reviewers must COMPLETE a game before writing a review. I'd wager money that many second opinions you read are not based on finished games. Is that fair? I lost count of how many people raved about what a fantastic demo Fahrenheit had, or how great it was for the first few hours. I'd sure be leery of a second opinion based solely on that.
No, we don't JUST play games we get for free, but we can hardly demand staff buy games to offer a second opinion. And a second opinion either comes with the review, or it's worthless. The fact is, there just aren't that many of us, and sometimes finding ONE reviewer is hard enough, let alone a couple others.
EDIT (after Ninth's new post): No, the second opinions couldn't just be sporadic (in practice). That'd be incredibly sloppy.
The other suggestions are even more problematic, so I won't address them unless someone really feels slighted.
I'm... intrigued by the comments here, though. I'm seeing requests for summarized opinions for essentially the very reasons we
write the reviews. Namely, to clarify potentially misleading information based solely on one person's score with pros and cons.
