>>103114350D3 already made the Angels to be out-of-touch and more than a little holier-than-thou, although the only "bad" angels are Imperius, whois just an annoying pissant more than an enemy, and Malthael, who literally became the Angel of Death and wanted to destroy all mortal life.
I can't see how they'd add a sympathetic side to the demons. Even Lilith's part in the creation of the Nephalem was driven by a lust for power, rather than a dream for peace like Inarius. There doesn't exist a named demon in the games or the stories that isn't an absolute prick. Even those that aren't necessarily destructive, like Greed, are still chaotic and cruel.
If they were to somehow try and make "good" demons, I'll want to see the crazy mental gymnastics they pull off to write it.
As for the church: D1 already began with what was effectively the Zakarum pope actually being Diablo's lackey, and the high priests in Travincal were slowly driven to serve the Hells via Mephisto's influence, so it's not like that'd actually be new anyway. True, uncorrupted devotees to Zakarum (playable Crusaders and Paladins for instance) seem to be genuinely blessed though, so it'd be more a case of figureheads abusing their power, or simply being corrupted, rather than the faith being discredited. That aside, there are like, 50 religions in Sanctuary, all of which seem legitimate. Even Priests of Rathma, the Necromancers, seem to have a very real faith that gives them a sort of blessing and punishment.
>>103114473Honestly? Absolutely. It's a pay-once-and-play-until-the-servers-close game, so you can play as much or as little as you want until Blizzard decides to close up shop (which they've yet to do with even Diablo 1). It's not a great Diablo game, but I can't deny that the combat is fun, if repetitive. Gear grinding is a bother, but eh, you get used to it.
