I never said W3 does.. There are two arguments in this thread.
1) W3 looks more impressive than this demo while actually playing it. I agree with this. Yes, it's a demo, but for all the power from a GPU it requires, it's not really doing anything that screams "incredible".
2) This demo rivals movie quality graphics such as Monster House. This is pure hyperbolic and doesn't even come close to the complexity of even Toy Story 1. The example given is the limitation that today's hardware still can't push a crap load of triangles through the pipeline without compromising the real-time defintion. On top of that, they can't process shadowing every light source for every object in the scene. Again, a big limitation in hardware. Without those two fundamentals, you can't really make comparisons to CGI and be taken seriously.
"Stop and look down at the ground with the foliage.. still using sprite cards that don't cast individual shadows on the ground. The ground underneath isn't even detailed enough like W3's ground." Sure sounds like you did. Considering what you wrote that's how I interpreted it. You mentioned the sprite cards in the same context as the ground together with Witcher 3 specifically. ^_^