It would be a terrible disaster if philosophy lost any of its forms of presentation, from Dialog, to Aphoristic, to Mathematical, to Historical, to Polemic, this one, which I guess I would describe as Contrastive.
The form in Philosophical Investigations is good for what it is good for, wending your way through ground that has been covered by many people before you, but which is not converging toward a single solution.
But there are a lot of times where you want to simply lay out your own view, not compare it to everyone else's, and let the community compare and contrast alternatives on its own terms. Wittgenstein was a grand master of detail, and he was very unattached and even-handed. So he could honestly present most contrasting views, without accidentally skewing too much.
Most people should not write this way, because they are not him. Someone like Feyerabend, or Neitsche, for instance, gains a great deal of clarity in presentation by degrading and lampooning their adversaries, showing how their particular perspective shows light where it was absent, without expecting folks to read only their take, and truly believe everyone else is a fool. Socrates had the same gift in many Dialogs.
And there is little point in multiple people laying out one another's opinions in the long run, unless there is an undue quantity of confusion around things. Language usage is something that eternally spews confusion, so doing it once in a while is a great service to the discipline, but if this style of presentation became the norm, philosophy in general could become offensively redundant and onerous to address.
Bertrand Russel went about the same thing a totally different way. He wrote a number of books from different, clear perspectives, that all contradict. This is more reasonable, in my opinion, if it makes him look very strange in the end, when you try to take all of his work as an integrated whole.