I don't care for them, but then again, I am one of those old fashion SOB gca's who feel the golf course ought to be receptive to average to good shots.
That said, I have had a lot of fun playing Olympic, where nearly every tee shot has to be just inside the high tree line/fw edge, or Mid Ocean (I played when it was really dry, and saw why so many fw were lined by save bunkers on the low side, so CBM must have known how they would play, probably made better over the years with irrigation).
I have been routing courses where the natural route from tee to green is straight, but that requires going over or cutting a big hill in the LZ down. Rather than do that, many gca elect to give the hole a slight dogleg to reduce earthmoving, but in moving the LZ down the slope, it naturally has a reverse slope LZ as a tradeoff for not going over the hill. I believe most gca's who design such a slope probably don't think about how it really would play or don't understand the physics involved.
So the question is, if you do know, should you design a hole that hitting a good shot cannot stay on the fw? I have designed a few where the the strategy is to hit the high side, but, softening the reverse slope at least enough to where an decent shot can stay on the fw. Some gca's, realizing that is a fine line, with irrigation, future turf conditions, etc., beyond their control, and avoid them altogether, no matter how much grading it takes.
These days, under typical irrigation, the cross slope of a fw has to be under 10%, and on the slice side, especially if the tee shot is also downhill, under 5%, or the ball bounds off the fw. (When a ball lands in an uphill LZ, cross slope can be higher because the upslope kills the momentum and reduces the roll)