I think it's style preferences. I think one persons superfluous is another persons intricate. There is minimalist design, and maximalist design. Minimalist, functional golf course are totally fine for my tastes, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't enjoy something a bit over-the-top from time to time.
A couple examples: I've played at Lawsonia a couple of times now (I recently learned that I just love Wisconsin and went twice in a year), and I think that course is a good example of maximalist design. I think another example is the South Course at Corica, which I very much enjoyed, except when I was in the patch of the course along the oakland airport, and suddenly the shaping all seemed hyper surreal. I looked out through the fence at the pseudo-natural flat shape of the landfill that made the island juxtaposed with the hyper-detailed shaping of Rees Jones, and felt like only when put next to the airport did the shaping seem over-the-top.
On the minimalist front, I'd point to some of the better holes at Sharp Park in Pacifica. I think
the opener there is fantastic, even if it's a bit of a gentle handshake. A single bunker and a single stream forces the player into a series of tough decision if they want to aim for the ideal right side of the fairway, while also playing pretty simply with the less ideal center route, and having a very tough, but not impossible, shot if they player accidentally chooses the left side. One bunker, one stream, one mound in the fairway, almost zero elevation change, which all together makes a pretty solid golf hole.