Do you think that fewer new courses are long and difficult than were built twenty years ago?
I think so. I can't really speak for the entire industry or profession, but I know I have certainly backed off difficulty in the little design work I do. I know management companies seem to realize that all those hard courses got players in the door once or twice, but that courses of average playability tend to pick up rounds over time.
One business consultant postulates that the most popular courses are those that allow golfers to shoot about their normal score most days. Another goes statistically further, saying your course design ought to aim for the national average slope rating of 116. In reality, some say the real average is 120, and IMHO, in any urban area with 1980-2005 era country clubs for a day, the average slope from the middle tees may be as high as 125, meaning the average player is probably shooting his average score on a course with slopes around that number.
Of course, that raises the interesting question of whether a course ought to be purposely designed somewhat hard, with flashy looks to open, knowing that changes will come in a few years, again purposely, because that is what happens in many cases anyway. Given it is often time to change or replace sand in 3-7 years, reducing bunkers at that time makes a lot of sense (to me, anyway)
And, back to the OP, for me, not really. I never really cared about score, and have always been willing to try the bump and run, curved shots, etc. just for fun, even if their chances of success go way down.
I agree choices are fun, but wouldn't they be more fun if on select holes the local rules would allow you to play it both ways just to see? It occurs to me that "making choices fun" would be a great separate topic for consideration.
Lastly, I am waiting for JK or other similar jokesters to make some comments like, "As I age, my definition of fun is trying to not go to the bathroom until the 9th hole, and laughing my ass off if I don't make it and wet myself........"