Ally,
With Pacific Dunes, the ocean is more "in play" than at Bandon Dunes.
When your angle of attack is at 90* the ocean is usually far removed from play versus a hole where the ocean flanks the hole.
In one instance, the ocean serves, from a practical point, only as a visual element, while with the other, the ocean is a physical element, a feature of the golf course.
Moving away from the ocean presents the same challenge as moving toward it does, unless you're analysis is blinded by the visual.
The quality of the hole is the determining factor, not the views afforded.
One of the most interesting arrangements involving the ocean and its use is the 10th and 11th holes at Pacific Dunes.
I find both holes to be exceptional, if not fantastic, yet one hole attacks the ocean at about 90* while the other has the ocean flanking it. I find the individual and collective features of those holes to be exceptional, fantastic, yet both use the ocean in different ways. If instead of having architectural and playing merits, with each of the holes being bland, without much in the way of complimentary features, you'd categorize the holes as nice holes with good views, when they would really be mediocre holes with exceptional views. In other words, the architect would have sold you the sizzle absent the steak. I prefer a great steak, and if sizzle accompanies it, all the better.
Well, the same applies to every hole that follows a GREAT hole.
the comparative analysis.
Only you've added in the visual element in terms of the presence of the ocean.
You didn't qualify the hole leading to or paralleling the ocean, hence, the hole that follows that hole has only to possess similar architectural merit, in terms of conitinuity. It can't be exponentially worse, it can be equal to or better than, but, it shouldn't be inferior, architecturally, to its predecessor.