But to get all Occamsian, each and every good course I've ever played only reveals itself after multiples plays, ergo subtlety is not necessarily memory until yo've had sufficient exposure to a course. Then again, you might just be more astute than me. and after well meaning emoticons.
Failed the astute test- "Occamsian" ? sounds like those snakes we avoid in creeks in Georgia.
If every "good course" you've played only revealed itself after multiple plays, why the second play?
Seems you'd have to replay a lot of mediocre/shitty courses to test that theory
No doubt a course can get better after each play, and more and more subtle features revealed upon repeat plays, but a subtle course has to be charming and/or memorable enough to warrant repeat play.
Generally, a course that I discover to have more and more subtle features receives my repeat play because it was at least fun the first and "noticeably subtle(an oxymoron?) in spots" to warrant the second time , and becomes more increasingly complex as I play it and further uncover its charms.
Palmetto being the prime example vs. it's less subtle and more flashy neighbor Sage Valley.
To take this the other way, often the "memorable features"water, native grass, railroad ties
, deserts, contribute to the unplayability thus encouraging a one and done mentality