Nope. We were blown away.
Even knowing full well we'd eventually have real-time photorealistically rendered worlds to explore, surgery to perform, molecules to inspect... The early advances were exciting.
"Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices."
VR has some thorny non-gear problems to solve. Human physiology ain't simple.
HoloLens are the biggest let down. That FOV was unusable.
Maybe mercurial MagicLeap is doing AR the right way.
Magic Leap has an augmented reality device that does that, although not launched yet.
My feeling is that light field displays will massively increase sense of reality - and reports of people using Magic Leap back that up.
However, I don't think it's necessary for lots of use of VR or AR.
Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices. If you think we don't have the technical capability to put higher-resolution screens in there, or to make better graphics, or to extend the FOV... the only problem right now is cost. The reason for these limitations is cost. They're solving the hard problems before tackling the easy ones because we already know how to solve the easy problems. Solving easy problems doesn't get you hundreds of millions of dollars worth of startup investment. And screen resolution is definitively an "easy" problem to solve.
The YC post didn't say "VR is perfect today", it said "VR is going to get a lot better". You have to be able to see into the future and determine what problems are solvable and what problems may never be solved. All of the problems you see with current VR are ones that are easily solvable (except maybe immersion, but you'd have to actually define what that actually means).