On the subject of CDPR's "godlike" powers, maybe we should clarify WHY people like CDPR.
In my opinion it's mostly because they come off as an honest developer in terms of what gameplay and story they put int their games. Witcher 1 was mostly known for having a role-playing story that presented choices and stuck to them in a noticeably harsher way than what you see from BioWare these days. It gave off the perception that CDPR is a developer with balls, and that they're in this more for the love of game design than sales. The desire for sales and business is definitely still there, but it's sort of like a balancing scale that different developers manage differently. Compare this to BioWare, which has been putting up survey after survey basically asking the fans "tell us what kind of game you want us to design!" This was all despite Witcher 1's pedestrian tech and odd combat system.
Those qualities continue into Witcher 2 on top of the already elaborate lore from the books the games build on. But with Witcher 2 CDPR got their graphics engine in gear in a way nobody saw coming, and married it with excellent art direction. At the time of release Witcher 2 was possibly the best-looking role-playing game on the market, period. Part of it was because in 2011 very few games really targeted PC hardware before consoles. I remember upgrading my graphics card that year pretty much just for Witcher 2 and Crysis 2.
Today, Witcher 3 definitely faces stiffer competition on the tech end now that all the mainstream developers have been unshackled from 360 and PS3-era hardware (mostly). BioWare can work on an engine that will at least let them take better advantage of more modern hardware. In light of competition from Frostbite, UE4, and CryEngine, in my opinion CDPR's RED engine still manages to impress. It's not flawless (even Witcher 2 wasn't when it came out), but it's provided a lot of "wow" moments so far.
Between Witcher 3 and DA:I, art is subjective of course. Artistically I think DA:I looks better than Origins or DA2. BioWare seems to have found a place for the look of Dragon Age, but it's a different one from what you see in The Witcher. As someone already said, Dragon Age looks more like a fantasy video game between the two. It holds to a lot of visual fantasy tropes and such. The Witcher on the other hand looks much more directly inspired by medieval Europe. Personally, I prefer the latter look. You could also theoretically say the same for the enemy and armor designs of the Souls games. I've always felt like the early and mid-game armor designs had an "authentic" look to them, only getting crazy when you reached late-game gear. Between Witcher and DA:I, I'll also agree that so far Witcher 3's lighting looks more natural.
Lastly, I've heard some press who've seen both games more closely compare other aspects of their tech, one being NPCs. Witcher 3 is trying to do the Elder Scrolls/Ultima VII thing where every NPC you see is actually doing something or going somewhere for some reason. In comparison, DA:I's NCPs are kind of just standing there. That's just one aspect of course, but overall I have the feeling that Witcher 3 is going to be the more ambitious technical achievement between the two games. That could mostly be because it's not cross-gen.
