I haven't had much time to play with it due to be being busy. But I have to disagree that it's an entirely PC game that's been ruined to play on console. The argument could be made either way.
It depends what you want out of the game. There are also limitations on console that weren't there before. To add new coaster building features, they've altered the genius control pad mapping of the original which is now far more cumbersome to build (although I understand as the coaster builder itself is far more refined as a tool) and is less suited to a controller than before. I couldn't even use a keyboard and mouse if I tried in the original, and get far better results from a controller, and it offers a far better experience with a controller in the original for me personally. Less so now, although you can get used to it.
To run on various spec PC's, console users are now capped at 30fps, and I can't see any reason other than to be cross functional with PC's as to why this should be the case as there's tonnes of other large open world games on consoles that mange to deliver 60 absolutely fine. The original ran at 60fps without breaking a sweat, and the slow downs some PC users used to endure were not there on Series X/S or PS5 and it remained quite stable.
They managed to tailor a PC game very well to console with the original. This has been built from the ground up to be both, with the trade offs that come with that on both sides. With the amount of complaints around spec requirements required to run 2 on PC, I would imagine that the amount of people with a high end top spec PC that are severely cut back on features is very small.
They should probably look for a way to restore missing features and enhancements for powerful PC owners that don't prevent the game from being multi-platform and versatile. They should also probably look for a way for console users to be customise controller layouts more and increase the frame rate.
Since they managed to get over the hurdle of translating a PC designed game for console very well with the original and had great success with it, it makes sense why they designed both in mind with the sequel from a business point of view.
It could be argued that they're actually quite late to the party. Lemmings was brought the Mega Drive, Worms was brought to the Playstation, and Doom was brought to the SNES, 32X, Playstation and Saturn in the 90's. This was in an era when console hardware varied massively from PC's. PC's, like now, could be built as powerful as you liked based on the latest tech available at the time. Whereas consoles used to use highly customised architecture to deliver performance as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, mainly to mimic various powerful arcade boards designed for specific purposes with a "jack of all trades" chipsets. This was most prominent in the 4th, 5th, and 6th generation where consoles varied widely from eachother, The writing was on the wall when Sega developed the Saturn with complicated custom architecture that was out of tune with developers and the way gaming trends were heading, and included Windows CE into the Dreamcast to help develops bridge the gap between the console architecture, PC's and ports from other consoles. Microsoft built the Xbox and Xbox 360 with pretty standard PC chipsets, whilst Sony got stung developing the complex Cell Broadband engine for the PS3. Consoles have been built with pretty much off-the shelf PC parts ever since.
Other games have been developed to deliver cross-platform interactivity for years. Although I accept that it's PC users who have mainly paid the price for this, Cyberpunk being a prime example.
Not that any of it will matter within a console generation or 2 when we'll all likely be playing games off of servers anyway.
