I've been having a big think over Linux distros. See, I've been looking back at my still-new Linux experience of nine months, and wondering how my own journey can help other people get started with FOSS operating systems. Whenever the topic of a Windows refugee-friendly OS came up, I would recommend Linux Mint because, first, it's the one everyone says, and second, it was the Linux OS that I started with, fresh off Windows.
I always follow that up with a comment about how you don't have to stick with Linux Mint if you don't want to. You can do what I did, which is to dip your toe into the Linux distro water and find something that suits you better. But if I'm setting up Linux Mint as "my first Linux distro," why not just skip the middleman and get right into the distros that have a bit more meat on them?
Both are bad reasons to pick a distro to recommend. Better reasons would be
Because a middleman distro is practically unavoidable.
You don't know the best distro for someone else; and if the person is a newbie, odds are they don't know it for themself either. So the odds the person will eventually ditch that distro you recommended and stick with something else are fairly large.
I have both installed although I practically only use Cinnamon (due to personal tastes; I do think Plasma is great). It's by no ways as finicky as the author claims it to be.
Plasma is more customisable than Cinnamon indeed, but remember what I said about you not knowing the best distro for someone else? Well, you don't know the best DE either. You should rec something simple that'll offer them an easy start, already expecting them to ditch it later on.
That's circular reasoning: you should ditch Mint because of Cinnamon, and you should ditch Cinnamon because it allows you to ditch Mint.
Or you can install all those gaming features in any other distro of your choice.