I have a panasonic 1080p plasma still and so can easily compare with the lcd monitors that I have. I don't know if you do? But point is, that experience trumps technical jargon, or in other words, what matters is what the experience is like. It is true that plasma 600hz which mine was advertised as doesn't feel or look exactly the same as say an lcd at 144hz, but it most certainly has a better feel than an lcd at 60hz. The plasma tv gives a smoother experience than lcd 60hz. Also I have never been able to get my TN LCD, or IPS LCD to match the color/image quality of my plasma. The only downside the plasma has is that it is 1080p and so that hurts the image a bit, but outside of that plasma is most certainly the better technology for color image quality.
Any 1440p or 4K LCD panel is gong to beat a 1080p plasma in regards to image quality. I'm not sure what IPS or TN display you are comparing it to but I don't need to see a plasma display to know that more pixels is going to result in higher image quality. On top of that Plasma TVs are required to have a glass front which means glare is going to be hella bad and the max brightness means they couldn't be used in every environment.
Another part of image clarity, response times and refresh rate, Plasmas are at a disadvantage for as well. The way Plasma TVs generate different shades is by quickly turning on and off subpixels. By modulating the rate at which the subpixel is on or off you change the perceived shade. To display a darker shade of blue the plasma would just flicker the blue subpixel at a slower rate. This is where the "600 Hz" figure comes from. It's measuring the number of times a pixel and it's subpixels can be flickered within a given refresh rate. In effect each flicker is a portion of a pixel / subpixel transition. Most Plasmas operate at a refresh rate of 60 Hz and would flicker 10 times each frame, thus you get your marketing "600 Hz". Mind you plasmas displays have a minimum pixel transition time of 5ms as this is how long the phosphor takes to decay. On top of that, the pixel response time profile of plasma TVs is sub-optimal. Many LCD panels tend to push the pixels to the desired values early in the transition, sometimes at the cost of overshoot. This drastically reduces the time pixel transitions take and many displays have settings that let users tune pixel response time (often called overdrive). This faster response time means that high motion games and movies will be more clear.
IPS panels are the go to for color accuracy and OLEDs are a close 2nd (OLED do have the best contrast by far though). You are likely referring to contrast which is where Plasma's are pretty good. That said VA LCD panels typically achieve around the same contrast or better without the drawbacks of Plasma and all the advantages of modern LCDs. Samsungs new Odyssey monitors are a good example of that.
As I pointed out earlier, even reviews from that time were not blow away compared to existing products on the market. Your experience is noted but that doesn't automatically dismiss the conclusions from existing reviews.
Unfortunately plasma seems to have gone away because it was difficult to make them above 1080p for cheap, used more power, and burn in is simply never able to be completely mitigated. Now burn in is I think different from image retention, in that "burn-in" may refer to permanent image burned in, while image retention would be temporary. My plasma does retain the image for static objects if they are on the screen too long, they are not easy to notice if not looking at a pure color background, but they do show up. Now they do go away over time if I start using it with different images on screen, but say I play a game for a significant amount with a static ui for a month, that ui might faintly be seen for a good 1-2 months if I start playing a new game. So far I do not notice any permanent burn in over my 10 years of ownership, though I of course made conscious effort to make sure I don't leave a static image on for too long.
I unfortunately haven't been able to get an oled yet, so I don't know how they would compare to plasma.
OLEDs have similar brightness issues to Plasma although less burn-in issues. That said OLED burn-in is often permanent but modern panels have done a good job of mitigating the chance of that.
OLEDs have vastly superior contrast as they can completely turn off pixels where as plasma pixels still retain some light. They can display a wider range of color, have a higher peak brightness, and have better color accuracy. OLEDs are not as efficient as LCDs but they are more efficient than Plasma TVs.
Not really of importance for end consumers but maybe a reason they shouldn't catch on, Plasma TVs emit a lot of radio frequency interference. Talking up to 1/2 mile away.
