The things he's mentioning, motion capture, audio ect. They're not examples of innovation, they're examples of improvements and, especially on console versions, are pretty poor ones at that. To say Battlefield 3 was innovative is so wrong I think this guy doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
The multiplayer on BF3 isn't as good as Bad Company 2, thought BFBC2 was almost perfect. The campaign was a blatant rip off of Call of Duty... and it was worse (how the f*$k did you manage that Dice)! Destruction physics in BF3 should have been an innovation with the use of Frostbite but they somehow managed to balls that up as well, half the environments in both SP and MP are indestructible and again aren't as impressive as BFBC2.
I've heard so many people rage about multiplayer maps like Grand Bazaar and Operation Metro, and I can see why. Whats the point in putting in destruction physics in your game when you can't blow a hole in the wall of a room, that has a half dozen bad guys inside it, all of them fixing their sights on the only doorway in.
As for Need for Speed, well unless a racing title includes the words Project Gotham or Mario Kart 64 I'm generally not interested and never buy them. Not because the game may not be well made but because racing games are seldom fun, those two examples being the exceptions obviously.