I guess I am just used to it, so I don't discount a course for houses around it. In fact, if houses are nice enough, they don't affect me at all, I even enjoy seeing the backyard design treatments of some.
Besides the long walks and too tight houses TD mentions, it seems to me that the higher end communities are fine. As they try golf courses with lower cost housing, you tend to get a lot of things they deem necessary to make the housing design work at rock bottom cost. This includes, more houses, smaller houses, lower quality homes, straighter lines, less room for landscaping, tighter corridors, etc.
Of course, the golf course itself tends to have a lower purpose and budget, and truly does end up not being all it might be, if the architect had free hand. Many developers really don't understand the cost and value of golf, and expect the proverbial champagne course on a beer budget. Add in that most housing courses are meant mostly to use up flood plain land the developer can't put houses on, and it also starts out on less than desirable land in many cases.
Obviously, time improves most housing courses, as trees and landscape mature, partially hiding the houses or setting them off well. Starting on a wooded site, with lot sizes that allow some tree preservation is preferable and gives instant maturity.
Design matters, too. I have also seen some great examples of row houses looking better if a few are set at slight angles and different spacings along the golf course, rather than lining up perfectly. But, that rarely happens, unless the parcel is plentiful and land was cheap. I tried to steer them that direction in China, but when the local land planner took over, the straight lines re-appeared, and the client felt they were justified as the economics dictated XX number of housing units on the land, so there was no wiggle room.