Why are two rooks so misleading?

Only in rare cases are two rooks actually better than a queen. Normally, the queen absolutely destroys two rooks, even if the rooks have an extra pawn, unless the position is greatly simplified or the rooks are deep inside or exceptional stuff like that.
On the other hand, 3 minor pieces often beat the queen even if she has an extra pawn on her side.

frl. I usually prefer the queen unless the rooks are doubled or doing actual damage

yeah, but she said in rare cases, so there willl be position that you won't want bc you are losing in that rare position

doesn't this often occur in greatly simplified positions? It's hard to make this trade in the middlegame

Exactly yesterday I had a position in which I traded my queen for two rooks. There were no other pieces on the board, my king was safe, and the only passed pawn that my opponent did manage to generate was easily stopped. I also had two extra pawns (doubledf-pawns) which helped safeguard my king.

It depends on the circumstances, and all of them were in my favour.

I honestly prefer 2 rooks to one queen, they can coordinate and attack easily.

isnt it just better if the rooks are connected

Sometimes two rooks are cool, sometimes one queen rulez

usually it's the queen unless like the position is extremely tight without many moving parts.

With a queen you threaten everything, With two rooks, you mean it.

Three minor pieces defeat both tho.

How I play? Let's just say two minor pieces could put me away, I blunder like it's a hobby

Two queens might be even better

Only if you can handle that much drama on the board

LMAO