I find it very interesting that the main aspect of this thread under most scrutiny is aesthetics. Given that, I would have thought that in addition to figuring out how an inland course can at least be interesting and challenging, if not somewhat living up to the standards of a links, what the great heathland archies (and Colt was certainly the the greatest) gave us was a sense of aesthetics which in addition to the above, essentially confirmed that golf can be successfully played inland. From this perspective, I would disagree with TomP and say that aesthetics are important even if their impact on playability is limited. Having said that, I also believe that folks under-estimate the impact aesthetics have in making courses more challenging than courses which fail to rest in the land comfortably. And for this reason, I am against the use of yardage aids because it goes a long way toward negating the playing benefits of a well executed natural looking course. That isn't to say that a more manufactured look can't be just as good, only that I believe it is that much tougher for the archie to pull it off.
Ciao