I have certain features I like in a golf course. Little if any water in play, no forced carries, permits ground game, walkable, relatively compact, relatively open (not treed to death), bunkers used strategically rather than "just for looks," interestingly contoured greens, green green surrounds with recover challenges, but also with options, designed principally for the average player to play for fun, with with the possibility of tough set-ups when appropriate. What I don't like: real estate development courses with houses lining fairways and long trips from green to next tee and overly groomed fairways (I like to think I'm playing in somewhat of a natural setting, and nature isn't perfect). Mastersbation in maintenance pisses me off. Seems to me I've heard much of the same from others.
However, I'm not sure if I'd say that archicture that does not conform to my likes pisses me off. I can just choose to not play such courses. If an owner or developer hires an architect to design a course on land left between that which is best for homesites, I'm not inclinded to blame my dislike on the architecture.
The one design/construction/maintenance issue I will not forgive is poor drainage. If, regardless of the other demands, the architect cannot handle drainage issues, then I do fault the architecture. The architect is either incompetent, or has accepted a job on an impossible piece of property for a golf course, for which I also blame him or her.