If you do not know the specifics how can you come to that conclusion? . I am saying that you cannot answer your question without addressing point 1 to 3.
With the consoles moving to 16GB do you honestly think that developers will just use 8GB and leave the rest?
Because it does more than other games in various aspects. Better looking, also, is 1) subjective; 2) dependent more on processing power than just vram. Again, watch the video if you really want to understand. Really can't compare apple & oranges. There's a million things going on under the hood, of all games, that you're not accounting for as opposed to just determining the game's technical chops from a mere screenshot/clip.
Ok guys, I just watched the video... and from your replies I don't think you guys did. The talk he is giving is all about the console development, which was different to the PC version in how it was coded and implemented. The PC version was vastly more inefficient as you will see if you watch from 1:02:00 where a guy asks why certain techniques were not used and the dev explains why no effort was put into optimising it. His explanation is vague and he look uncomfortable and says:
"I have a bunch of slides talking about the PC version but we have no time to cover it for an extra 30 mins".
"In the end due to technical limitations on PC we ended up not sharing any of that memory and just duplicating it all and just (raises hands and shrugs) loading high MIPS the traditional way and not trying to like, exchange memory back and forth".
So, as I strongly suspected, both of you are talking absolute guff... the PC version was an unoptimised console to PC port with excessive VRAM usage.
Also, better looking is also not 'subjective', it is measurable through quality of assets and graphical fidelity used and on display.