I've never been to that course but I did notice a few greens did shed the ball off the green and down some slopes. Generally when that happened it seems like the ball was eventually stopped by rough before getting all the way to the desert floor. Are you saying the ball should have shed off those greens and eventually ended up on the desert floor?
I think it would have been more interesting for the following reasons:
1. On some holes, missed approaches would have fed to the desert floor, making the choice of how agressive to be on the approach shot more difficult. On other holes, the ball would have been fed further from the green and posed more interesting recovery decisions along the lines of Pinehurst No. 2.
2. Tee to green - there was a substantial amount of relatively short rough tee to green. The grass corridors are very wide. Thus, the desert only came into play as a hazard if the player hit a very wild shot.
If that rough were fairway, I think players would have been tempted to take more agressive lines off the tee bringing the desert into play and posing some more interesting decisions. Furthermore, eliminating rough would have put more emphasis on accuracy off the tee because there would be less of a safety net keeping the ball in play.
The problem with no rough is that it usually means there are no recovery shots - most balls in the desert wind up unplayable - maybe that is my problem with a desert course being using at all for a potentially very exciting event.
I think the desert is a far more interesting hazard than water and is closer to the rough on links courses, or chunked vegitation you find on sandbelt courses or the no mow areas at Sand Hills and many other courses. I think it particularly works well when the playing corridors are wide like at the Gallery South.
As long as you can take a swing at it, the desert offers many interesting recovery shots. I know - I have tried them all.