Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.