I hate to disagree with the Sage of the South right off the bat but I think you undersell the appeal of Strantz to this audience. While there is a consensus that the Shore Course is terrific, I think there is also a generally held belief on GCA that Caledonia is a fine golf course and Tobacco Road has a great deal of appeal. Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm, Stonehouse and Royal New Kent tend to be more polarizing as a group. Not necessarily because they are big and bold but because of the notion that they are hard. I think some of that comes from the visual stimulation provided by the designs. There seems to be a lot going on but if you think a bit about the hole and angles, they are pretty playable. However, the shots are more demanding than your average public golf course.
As for the premise of your post, I would choose unique, fun and stimulating. However, I would qualify those words as they apply to each architect.
As a caveat, I have only played two Engh courses (Redlands Mesa and Tullymore). In this limited sample size, I found the courses to be visually stimulating, almost artistic (particularly Redlands Mesa). The setting of Redlands Mesa (with views of the Colorado National Monument) is as unique and dramatic as the Pacific Ocean at MPCC in some respects. As I recall, several holes on the front take tremendous advantage of the vistas and there are some very good holes along that stretch. My biggest criticism of the design is the overuse of the drop shot par three...but that plays into the visual stimulation that seems such a part of this course's core. I also thought the course was very playable and you could avoid trouble by giving some thought to the design and your limitations as a golfer. I found Tullymore to be a bit more difficult and relying a bit more on hazards and forced carries to dictate the manner of play. I found both to be enjoyable but enjoyed Redlands Mesa much more.
With respect to Strantz, my sample size is much greater (MPCC Shore, Tobacco Road, Royal New Kent, Tot Hill Farm). His artistic side is well documented and evident in how he constructs most of his holes. There seems to be a small visual twist on most. Personally, I enjoyed each of the rounds mentioned above. I thought the Shore Course was eminently playable. The others are, to my way of thinking, more difficult. There are more forced carries, hazards impacting the line of play and less options on some of the holes. That does not make them less fun but it does increase the sphincter tightening factor on a lot of holes. Also, the importance of the angles of play seem more heightened on the latter three and require more thought/discretion. While I have heard the criticism from some that these courses are "too hard," they generally come from golfers who want to hit without any reflection other than the yardage. I think one of the reasons Royal New Kent and Stonehouse may have struggled financially is that after one play, many retail golfers just made up their mind that the course was too hard or too "goofy." When you stand on the first tee at Tobacco Road, most golfers either grin or grimace (the "what the hell did I get myself into" look).
As for Collins and Sweetens, put me down as a Kool-Aid drinker. I think it is a remarkable golf course. For one, he transformed a virtually table top flat piece of land into a unique, interesting and fun golf course. For the most part, you could play it with a putter. The bunker style is pretty bold and their placement generally holds visual clues as to a safe path to the hole. The course has considerable width and there are a number of ways to play the par fours and fives. The greens are extreme but that doesn't make them any less fun or interesting. What it does do is make playing the nine hole loop more than once a necessity because there are some pin placements that you are better off to play away from and some greens where the concept of a "proper miss" is really emphasized. The only letdown for me is that the par threes are aerial holes. This first one shotter is my least favorite hole on the course with the forced carry over the fescue and the massive green. The ninth hole is a good par three but it requires a carry over the waste area to a somewhat shallow green. However, I had a blast playing it and would never hesitate to tee it up there. To me, that's my criteria for an enjoyable golf course.
As for Tommy's assessment, I respect it. Perhaps it is possible to have too much uniqueness and quirk. I didn't think so but that's why ice cream comes in different flavors. It is also why rankings are only one tool in assessing a course's relative worth.