No, Warfighter is significantly worse than cod 58 or whatever it is. Black ops 2 tries(but ultimately fails) to do a few different things, the "tactical" levels which are basically multiplayer maps with bots, and the tactics don't really work, the team AI is pathetic so you basically just take control and play a map with painfully respawning enemy. It doesn't quite work, but the actual maps, because they are basically multiplayer, are a little less linear, they are small but open, and you get the chance to play as soldier or little chopper/turret/weird tank thing. Again the gameplay of those vehicles aren't very good, it doesn't work but it IS different to playing the same guy in every level.
Warfighter, is just balls, flat out balls, with so many mistakes, so many broken bits in levels(while the guy doing those video's is terrible, it is accurate).
Black ops 2 has many awful bits, not least the opening 1-2 levels are pretty woeful, but it does improve, the story isn't good, the airplane bit is almost embarrassingly poorly done, the driving bits are tiny and not very good, the horse bits are hilariously badly done. But again it comes back to, at least they tried to vary the levels a little bit, its better than making a carbon copy game that is done badly, which is what Warfighter is.
The weapons feel better to shoot and you have more options with them in Black ops over warfighter, the AI is probably better, not much but still better.
Either way, things are graded on a not standard scale, a crap game doesn't get 1/100, a really horrendous game will still get 30/100, a pretty awful game will get 50/100, a semi decent game will get 70/100, it has to be truly excellent to get 95+ and most people didn't seem to rate Black ops as that, 70-80/100 is "decent but not great". Warfighter deserved a lot less, its just woeful.
