I am of the opinion that architecturally, there ain't much else archies can throw at us, however, I can understand why archies wouldn't want to feel this way - its a glass ceiling. Besides, most golfers aren't really looking for innovative/creative ways to be challenged or they wouldn't use yardage guns to reduce the archie's creativeness to simple numbers. What the archies can do differently is in the details (how well are the strategies presented) and in how courses look, but the strategies are probably all set.
Sure, every plot of land is different, but I don't think archies are all that different, maybe because it doesn't pay to really step out of the box - even if this is possible given the fairly rigid expectations of golfers. Like American and British politics, the arguments rage within a very confinded set of parameters - the mainstream must rule because most folks are mainstream. For instance, it has long been my belief that we should be heading toward reducing par and to some degree yardage to help with creative architecture and to combat tech advances. Instead, courses keep getting longer and longer mainly because of expectations which are largely driven by marketing based on the pro game and what folks see on tv.
In an effort to try and be different, I think we can expect more golf in crazy places like mountains and deserts. The problem of creating different looks is solved by the golf unfriendly terrain. I would like to see mediocre to poor sites completely and randomly altered (as Tom suggests) then build a course. At least we stand a better chance of adding back into many courses what I think is lacking, the apparent randomness/luck of the game -which again harks back to the details of design. To create this sort of design it is essential to use "natural hazards" (even if we have to blow up the land first to create them) which is really just a way to introduce variety to the game. Far too many courses rely too patently on the same old same old. I know there are only so many strategies to incorporate into a course, but as Pat M states, it is infinite in how these strategies can play out. I am also hoping that the ideas of playing a course in reverse (so it must be designed to play both ways) and courses within courses are more explored. While these ideas are not new and don't really alter the face of architectural design, they do create variety in a more settled way rather than having to build another course on site.
Ciao