The video is funny but you can always cherry-pick. And even if it's not cherry-picking, it's enough to stop to think what the real-world reasons for it are:
1. Technology development is not always linear. I mean, when game X launches and does something awesome, it doesn't mean that technology (probably custom built inhouse) is available to all other develoeprs in the world, or that it's easy to reverse engineer it and implement in your game (it's not enough to buy the game and play it, you would have to have access to the whole project in the engine). Gamedev is not like a science community where one discovery is shared with the whole world to know it.
2. Resources. First of all, at the high level, time is money. For many of the features in the video, they probably lacked time = money to implement it. Red Dead Redemption 2 looks so good not only bacause it's somehow more technologically advanced, but because the devs had time and money to record, polish and implement all these context-sensitive animations.
3. Resource allocation. Different features are improtant for different gameplays. Advanced water physics can be very important in one game, and not so much in another game. You always need to make good decisions whether the time (=money) needed to do the thing translates to a significant increase in the game's quality. If not, you get these bloated AAAA budgets for games too expensive to fail - and then they fail because they got too big to break even.
4. Developers are people. People with unique skills and abilities. Hair in game A can be better simply because the dev resposible for it was more talented that their opposite number in game B. And knowledge preservation in game studios, from my experience, is really lacking, so when talented people are fired, their expertise is fired with them.