No way. Golden Goal was removed for the very reason that it made teams to hesitant to attack because one goal would decide it and then it is too risky to attack with many players because it leaves you open if you get countered. That made the overtime an exhibition in defensive play where the occasional horrible mistake or goalkeeper failure lead to a golden goal. Having a chance to actually get back even if you get scored on opened up the overtime again.
Plus, when teams know they have PK's to rely on, you see teams just kicking it around waiting for the whistle to blow.
That was one reason for removing the golden goal actually.
And to be entirely fair PK isn't entirely a russian roulette. Miss your first 3 like the US did in the finals vs Japan is simply unforgivable. The player got all the advantage in the world and the quality of PKs was laughable. Probably it was part fatigue, part nerves but that's what makes it interesting and such a trial for a team.
If US had put their best, most experienced player to take the first shot and scored then it would have turned out differently. I have honestly never seen a team miss the first 3 shots ever and I have seen countless penalty shootouts. It's one thing to make an awesome penalty shot and have it hit the post or the keeper doing an amazing save. It's another thing to shot it 5m over or a weak lame shot on the keepers side.
It's not an optimal way to close a match but it isn't in other sports either and if you don't have the balls for it then don't let it go to penalties. US twice failed to defend a lead, they can't really complain about the PKs then. Just like Brazil they had the most to lose in the PK and they let it get to them. Just like a tennis player can choke a tiebreak they choked in the PK.