The trailer certainly didn`t change the direction of the story, since that scene could be the opening of the game with a random mission with Joel and Ellie. That wouldn`t change the game a single iota. And as pointed you had the two together and that as you said doesn`t change the story. Not to forget Ellie was on the room together with Joel when things happened. I actually expect a lot less screen time for Joel.

What are we basing this on?

wishiful thinking and equating lack of sales info with bad sales.

Lol I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. 

Speaking purely for myself, The Last Jedi was my favorite Star Wars movie and The Rise of Skywalker my least favorite. I enjoyed The Last Jedi's character-driven focus (among other things about it), which was indeed unusual for a Star Wars film. The J.J. Abrams style of direction, in contrast, just seemed a little overly dependent on callbacks and retreading familiar sorts of plots.

I suppose it's correct to say then that it takes a certain openness to new things to really appreciate The Last of Us Part II, so maybe there's some commonality in that sense between that game and The Last Jedi. I do think it's almost inevitable that when you make more than just cosmetic changes to a franchise with a given installment, you'll tend to alienate a good portion of that franchise's fans. ...I guess I just don't care that much. I think it'd be nice if this game could be completely as popular as the original, but the fact that it might not hardly makes it an unworthy sequel, IMO.

That said, when I think of The Last of Us Part II, I don't think of Star Wars. The one does not particularly remind me of the other.

Yup, it's exactly that. Just for the record, TROS is awful much beyond any resorts on fanservice or nostalgia effect, that's why I excluded it from my argument and used The Force Awakens instead, which is nice even if inoffensive, but lack something to stand out by itself  

Regarding entertainment. Most people are conservative, not only in their moral values, but in what  they given value for. Just look at Nintendo selling a few million copies with ports of their 30 years old games just because people will choose to play those games again instead of trying something new  (as if the possibility of playing something new was too much risky for them)

Most of consumers wants  something there is familiar to them, and there isn't anything really bad about it, but when a media try to be disruptive it need customers who are indeed welcoming to changes, which history proves most of us are not. This happened with both TLOU 2 and TLJ, that's what my point, but I agree the works themselves aren't that similar

While TLJ was a victim of a strong outrage including many sexist comments and screams about a political subtext beyond any levels of stupidity and scrutiny I've seeing in 9 years following closely movie industry, it was an overall nice and positive movie still and I'm sure it gathered millions of new generation fans. Most of people I know who never cared much  about Star Wars just liked the movie and I think fans liking or not this is the right direction for the franchise

TLOU 2 is just miserable; The first one was a tale of a hope to finding a cure for a virus in a zombie world, the second is nothing but a circle of pity and darkness with one the most depressing endings I've ever seen. It's a game that it's hard to play again, even for people who liked it, it's just not a experience for everyone and I don't think ND will make a sequence of the same nature. The first game looks more suited for more audiences than the sequel, and that's alright not every game needs to have the same market

That's okay if you like the new SW films, it was never going to be a straight comparison of TLOU to SW as they are very completely different stories. The comparison sits more inline with the hate behind the new SW films and the hate behind TLOU2 to their direct predecessors.

For example, I love SW, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were some of my favorite movie characters, and to see them get killed off in the new films did not sit well with a lot of fans. Its not them dying which was the problem, its how they died. They were disposed of without any care and disrespected the history of what made them great in the first place.

SPOILERS

Luke, the character which fought through fear and single handily defeated Darth Vadar, the most powerful Sith Lord in existence and taking out the Empire all at the same time also gave into fear in The Last Jedi, where he was hiding, afraid, and banished himself.. Luke's exact line in A New Hope was "I am not afraid" to only revert back decades later that he is now afraid of a young apprentice.. someone he is more powerful than (Or should have been) That's the bad writing of the directors not understanding what made the old SWs films great. In The Last Jedi, Luke basically dies on a rock.. with what would be a great fight scene between Luke and Kylo-Ren, only to be disappointed it was all just a hologram and a trick. Luke's death was not deserving to his lore.

Han Solo also was killed off in such a cheap and quick way, basically gets stabbed in the back by his son, something Han would see coming, he relies on luck, and seeing him die like that was another movie character tragedy. Han is a skilled Pilot, one of the best ever, he relies on luck, his the type of character to go out with a bang, not a light saber in his gut, that even he would see coming. Lara also being strong with the force could have predicted this, instead she urges him to go confront Kylo.. wtf. These are major plot holes.

Now the same can be said with Joel, how he was killed off was premature, much like the old favorites in SWs. The death does not make sense to his character. Again no one is complaining that Joel died, its how he died. His a survivor and was just blatantly pushed aside to make room for this new character which felt the game forced you like. Sure Abby is not a bad character however she needed to be liked first before doing what she did before telling people to like her because of reasons.

Either are bad games or films, however they definitely fell short from their reputations of their predecessors.

The bolded part is something that both The Last Jedi and The Last of Us Part II have in common and frankly I think it's because there's a large amount of overlap between the conservative #StarWarsFans and the participants in the hate campaign against TLOU2. The latter make it a point to reference Star Wars, and The Last Jedi in particular, in their discussions of TLOU2 for that reason; to rally a certain crowd with a certain worldview. It's a kind of right wing dog whistle in my mind. You can likewise trace the origins of the #StarWarsFans hashtag to people who were previously active in the #Gamergate movement. There's a direct throughline to all of these movements, which is why they seem so consistently misogynistic and conservative-minded about the importance of fan service and so forth. It's literally the exact same people for the most part.

Anyway, as I've articulated many times, many ways now, I think The Last of Us Part II is a masterpiece. I mean yeah, the story is a harsh one and maybe it's my depression doing the thinking here but, ya know, I appreciated Nier: Automata in the similar way as well. I don't view TLOU2 as "torture porn". I view it as a Western essentially because that's really what it is and why it's harsh. It's not that popular a genre anymore and I suspect the harshness of many Westerns is part of why. Anyway, revenge stories are commonplace in the genre. This game uses that commonplace framework to tell an unusually complex and multi-layered story about the thinness of the line between love and hate. I think it's excellent and that detractors tend to have excessively surface level analyses of the game's themes; Naughty Dog being known for the subtlety of the way they communicate often. But well, that's just my take.

Yep, Luke is not overpowered at all. In the first movie he does mostly nothing force related, only that shot into the death star core at the very end of the movie.

Then he fights darth vader in the second movie and the difference is so big that darth vader even fights with just one hand holding the lightsaber. He gets better after trainning with Yoda and develops a few skills like force grab etc. In the third movie you can see he is much more capable now but again, fails when facing his enemies and is saved by his father. He is not overpowered at all and it takes a lot of time for him to develop his powers and he struggles with it. I think there is a nice development of a guy that lived in the sand at the begginning of last hope to a jedi in return of the jedi.

That's because the movies were based on a nobody becoming a somebody. They started when he wasn't powerful and you watch him grow. Being afraid was not in Lukes character. He was cocky and learnt his lessons the hard way. In Return of the Jedi, you see how powerful Luke became taking out Jabbas Palace. He had himself caught by the emperor on purpose because he was full of confidants that he could turn Vadar to the good side, something that was deemed impossible. Only reason the Emperor had Luke on the floor was due to Luke throwing his Light Sabar away after OVERPOWERING Vadar and on the verge of killing him. If you know anything about Star Wars, you would know that Vadar is no push over and Luke soloed him to the point of mercy.. or don't you remember that or choose to ignore that part? 

Luke was an extremely powerful Jedi, one of the best ever, something the movies don't really show often. If you read the books in between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would know that his incredibly powerful even Vadar was impressed with hearing about Luke's feats. Seeing him giving into fear in the later movies made no sense, not when he was single handily responsible of beating the greatest Sith Lord in Vadar, next to the Emperor. You don't go in hiding after that, Siths wouldn't scare Luke. Anyway i think you both need to watch the movies again.