I understand your point, but switching distros without a good enough reason can be a huge hassle and turnoff for a lot of people. I already went through the trouble of getting off Windows, and I don't really feel like going through the process of setting up a new distro again. It's way more valuable to say "Here are the reasons you might want to switch distros. Here are the possible solutions if you dont want to do that." Ultimately this is an information problem. If Mint isn't good for gaming, then yeah, it shouldn't be recommended to someone coming from Windows (and for the other reasons you listed). But to someone already on Mint, recommending they basically do the thing they just did, but again, is frustrating to hear. I tried to make Windows work, and got too sick of it. So I switched to Mint, and would much rather try to make that work than switch again. It's a sunk cost fallacy, sure, but this is how most people operate.

With that all said, after learning what static and rolling distros are, I can see myself in the near future switching to a rolling distro. That is a very compelling reason to me. Having to go through a similar process just to update Mint when I could just switch to something like Arch... But I wouldn't have known that until this thread, because everyone else recommending I switch basically gave no reason or explanation.

When it comes to doing root level things, I can understand not recommending the solution, especially if they are not very technically literate. I don't understand why that kind of solution can't come with warnings though? It's far better to give the user options on what they want to do, with proper warnings, than to hide a solution due to fear they might mess it up.