87 réponses à ce sujet

[AnotherAD]

boraxalmighty wrote...

Thats because this is not your story. What people seem to not realize is that your role in this game is to define the character at the heart of this story not the story itself. This is a retelling of past events so the outcome is inevitable. All you're doing is shaping the person Hawke is and the decisions s/he made that brought him/her to that point. It's like having two people tell their side of the story on the same event. Their stories may differ completely but they both ultimately reach the same conclusion.

If people would pay attention what is said in the story instead "lets rush to the end so I complain about this and this"  It is a different view of telling the story. To me that went over most everyone heads on that, seems Bioware will have to "dumb down" storytelling for the simple minded out there.  Your choices shape on how Hawke chooses in the end and yes your choices did matter.  And yes certain points whatever you did couldn't change the main plot. All stories are like that.

[Feradin]

They just have to make Dragon Age 3 COMPLETELY AMAZING and with a huge story ! Like... 200 hours of gameplay
I personally think Dragon Age 2 was an amazing game and i prefer the combat of DA2. I just don't like that it is so short and abrupt in the end.

[Oneiropolos]

Hm. First of all, I'm starting with saying that it took a while to warm up to me, but as a game, DAII was decent. But it did fall short in several areas.
1) Re-used areas. I kinda felt like I was playing an MMO at times. You know, how you're not phased by entering Cave Layout #2 in an MMO because once you've had enough quests in caves, you already know where the quest mob is going to be exactly in the cave or a good guess? Dragon Age II's areas were like that, but even more contrived in instances. Like, "This is a doorway, obviously, by the wooden framing you see around it. But there's a giant slab blocking your way. In other caves, you could click this slab and it'd slide up for no discernible reason, but this one, you can't. Got it? Good. You have to go down the hastily pasted in stairs instead for THIS quest. The next quest in this layout, you'll be using the doorway."
2) Character interactions. I rarely flat out put it this way, but people are just WRONG in stating that there's equal development in DAII for characters as in DA:O. There's not. It doesn't even come CLOSE without a ton of having that person in your party and hearing the banter... which doesn't work so well if that character just doesn't fit with your group makeup. In Origins, at camp, you could go up and talk with someone even if they were not someone you normally had in your group. A big example of that for me in the first game was Morrigan. I NEVER had her in my groups except the rare occasion, and Shale. I had friends who ALWAYS had them. But I didn't. I still felt close to both because I bothered to stop and talk with them and learn about them. DAII's forced character quests and those being the ONLY time you actually got to talk to a character just doesn't cut it. I'm not saying the companions weren't great. They were. I'm sad I didn't get to know them better.
3) Lack of Personal influence. Alot of people are saying that this was the story that had to be told. Except, in the first game, your warden had to collect all treaties and kill the Archdemon. That story HAD to go that way. I still felt like what I did mattered more in that game. -I- decided who would be the next king of the Dwarves. -I- made the decision between the Dalish and the Werewolves. -I- bargained for more time for the Rite of Anullment or not when it came to the circle. At the beginning of DA:O, you're basically a no one. Even if you're noble, you've only learned fairly basic fighting. If you're a mage, you have to go through the Harrowing. In DAII, Hawke already has an established family and history. But instead of playing off of that, they use Hawke's family as tools to further their own storytelling agenda. We can't even save our own mother from a serial killer who we've known about for YEARS. We're more capable than our Wardens were to start with, but we're complete victims to the will known as "The Devs Say so" when there's points where we should feel like we decided something BIG. Choosing to stop Anders or let him do it? (I've said it before, I'll say it again. Someone else could have done it and Ander could still be the one blamed in the story because he's the infamous apostate who even wrote a manifesto. The storytellers could have let us talk him down and still had what they needed happen. And it'd have been just as shocking the first time. Think about it. YAY! I stopped Anders from doing something really insane. Now the Grand Cleric is going to step in and.....what the...it blew up...but Anders was with me...) And the only 'big' decision we make is which side to take. Except it doesn't matter which side we take. It honestly doesn't. In both cases, we still kill both leaders. The only thing I DON'T know is whether the templars rebel in the mage ending or not. I know in the Templar ending, Varric says the mages rose up all over Thedas and the templars are even rising up too. Which is understandable, the Templars are supposed to be holy warriors but they're controlled by an addiction to something they have to take for their jobs. Point is: Hawke may help change the world, but it didn't matter what we did to get there. It happens with or without our decisions. I felt a lot like I was playing Assassin's Creed. I may get to choose the path taken to get to a target, but if my ancestor killed them, I have to kill them. AC I and II are amusing enough as games... but I hoped for more than forced storytelling from Bioware.

Those are my major issues. I'll still play the game several times, and if they're smart about the DLC in what they do with it, I'll buy it. Particularly if it lets me get to know my companions better. And I don't mean as "Play Fenris as he escapes from slavery!" like the Lelaina DLC. I want something that can further my time with my love interest in particular, because I really felt gipped on conversations with them in the game itself.

[rft]

Darth Obvious wrote...

What is wrong with Dragon Age 2?

Where to begin...

- The 3rd Act was extremely weak from a plot perspective. Fighting some stupid, annoying old woman as the final fight was utterly lame, and her supposed "possession" by the shard or whatever wasn't hashed out nearly enough to even remotely make sense. One of the biggest let-downs in video game history. The 2nd and 3rd Acts should obviously have been switched, with a massive invasion by the Qunari being the ultimate climax.

- The repetitive spawning of enemies in every battle is EXTREMELY tiresome and unnecessary, and it makes the combat really boring. If Bioware was trying to make Dragon Age 2 into a totally mindless hack-and-slash game, they succeeded. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could not be bored by this.

- The characters in your party weren't nearly as interesting in DA2 as they were in DA:O, and there isn't nearly as much dialogue with them. Hey Bioware, have you ever heard the expression, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”? I guess not.

- Just like with ME2, Bioware decided to TAKE AWAY player options in comparison to the first game in the series, like customizing your allies' armor/appearance (and even the main character's appearance options are drastically limited this time around). How is LESS choice a good thing when it comes to an RPG? That's what completely killed the replay value in ME2, and what will kill the replay value in DA2.

I agree with your first point. Bioware really teased the Qunari invasion as the ultimate climax. But instead, they went for a stupid "mages vs mage hunters". (templars) It would have made for an intresting 3rd game. Uniting all the lands to fight off the Qunari invasion. Much like DA:O.

Modifié par rft, 14 mars 2011 - 04:25 .

[MKDAWUSS]

mrsph wrote...

BIOWARE YOUR STORIES ARE TOO COOKIE CUTTER MAKE SOMETHING NEW

*Bioware makes a new story that deals with deeper issues than killing ancient evils*

OMG BIOWARE U SUCK! ORIGINS HAD THE BEST STORY EVAR!

To be fair, DA2 was littered with BioWare cliches.

[maxbarton]

boraxalmighty wrote...

 Thats because this is not your story. What people seem to not realize is that your role in this game is to define the character at the heart of this story not the story itself. This is a retelling of past events so the outcome is inevitable. All you're doing is shaping the person Hawke is and the decisions s/he made that brought him/her to that point. It's like having two people tell their side of the story on the same event. Their stories may differ completely but they both ultimately reach the same conclusion.

I understand this and a lot of hate comes from the fact that in the end, it doesn't matter who Hawke is.  The end is the same.  You get to see some minor results from your actions, like sparing people so they can try to kill you later.  However you know that in the grand scheme of things Hawke would only be remembered for killing a ton of people, or for what he got the title of Champion from.  Killing the Arishok.

Orsino, Meredith and Anders were the only characters that changed the fate of Thedas and mages.  If the hero hadn't been there events probably would have just taken longer or happened exactly the same.  Sure you found the artifact but that whilely little dwarf would have found a way to go on that expedition anyway.  Even if you didn't there were already signs that Meredith was coming down hard on mages.  Anders was insane and he would have found a way to blow up the chantry regardless.  This would have started the revolution anyway.  You play a bystander and that's not a great place to fit in a role-playing game.

Does this mean I hate the game?  Not really.  I'm getting ready for my second playthorugh.  It isn't my favorite title and I'm sure I'll buy the DLC when it comes out so that I can try and gain more from this game.  It does detract from having the epic character who changed the fate of the world.

Also you becoming Viscount is an afterthought, and in the end you disappear anyway.

[HolyJellyfish]

I think the main issue with DAII is that it was rushed.

Inon Zur, the composer, even went on to say that he felt pressured to finish the score within a short time period.

DA:O had a much, much longer period of time to find completion. ME2 also had a longer deadline, and I'm inclined to suggest more help.

DA2 was being pushed, which made it feel incomplete. Whether EA or anyone else is to blame, I cannot say.

However, I would like to make a comment that Earlier Game Release does NOT equal a good game. For the love of all that is beautiful, you don't have to be Duke Nukem or Star Craft II and spent decades making a sequel, but the writers, designers, and creators should have the breathing room to craft a GOOD story, GOOD visuals, and STRONG characters instead of being pushed to work on the edge of their seats with deadlines in order to what is essentially something more sub-par than intended. I get the impression this is why the story takes place specifically in Kirkwall instead of the world of Thedas - because adding that limitation makes it easier to push out faster results, instead of expanding into a game that would have taken at least a couple of years to reach completion.

Look at all the outstanding games and sequels over the years. Legend of Zelda (typically a four year delay), Half-Life 2 (6 years), Mass Effect 2 (3 years)... Hell. Even Fable 3 had at least two years to be finished.

Dragon Age 2? One year and three months.

AND LET US NOT FORGET that the Dragon Age Team was ALSO occupied creating DLC (Awakening, GoA, Leliana's Song, Witch Hunt...) WHILE working on the FREAKING SEQUEL.

Within a year and three month time frame. That is INSANE.

That is such a small time frame.

I really hope that the designers can convince the producers to give them AT LEAST a few years breathing space to work on Dragon Age 3.

Modifié par HolyJellyfish, 14 mars 2011 - 04:45 .

[boraxalmighty]

Oneiropolos wrote...


3) Lack of Personal influence. Alot of people are saying that this was the story that had to be told. Except, in the first game, your warden had to collect all treaties and kill the Archdemon. That story HAD to go that way. I still felt like what I did mattered more in that game. -I- decided who would be the next king of the Dwarves. -I- made the decision between the Dalish and the Werewolves. -I- bargained for more time for the Rite of Anullment or not when it came to the circle. At the beginning of DA:O, you're basically a no one. Even if you're noble, you've only learned fairly basic fighting. If you're a mage, you have to go through the Harrowing. In DAII, Hawke already has an established family and history. But instead of playing off of that, they use Hawke's family as tools to further their own storytelling agenda. We can't even save our own mother from a serial killer who we've known about for YEARS. We're more capable than our Wardens were to start with, but we're complete victims to the will known as "The Devs Say so" when there's points where we should feel like we decided something BIG. Choosing to stop Anders or let him do it? (I've said it before, I'll say it again. Someone else could have done it and Ander could still be the one blamed in the story because he's the infamous apostate who even wrote a manifesto. The storytellers could have let us talk him down and still had what they needed happen. And it'd have been just as shocking the first time. Think about it. YAY! I stopped Anders from doing something really insane. Now the Grand Cleric is going to step in and.....what the...it blew up...but Anders was with me...) And the only 'big' decision we make is which side to take. Except it doesn't matter which side we take. It honestly doesn't. In both cases, we still kill both leaders. The only thing I DON'T know is whether the templars rebel in the mage ending or not. I know in the Templar ending, Varric says the mages rose up all over Thedas and the templars are even rising up too. Which is understandable, the Templars are supposed to be holy warriors but they're controlled by an addiction to something they have to take for their jobs. Point is: Hawke may help change the world, but it didn't matter what we did to get there. It happens with or without our decisions. I felt a lot like I was playing Assassin's Creed. I may get to choose the path taken to get to a target, but if my ancestor killed them, I have to kill them. AC I and II are amusing enough as games... but I hoped for more than forced storytelling from Bioware. 

For the love of God people please stop comparing the storytelling of DA:O to DA2! Its a completely different type of story. As previously stated DA2 is a retelling of known events. You are replaying the life of Hawke instead of creating the lore of an unknown entity like in DA:O. It's the reason why Hawke cannot be an Elf or a Dwarf and why we should be thankful Bioware allowed us as much customization of Hawke as we got. His mothers death, the battle with the qunari, the deep road expidition, and the destruction of the chantry and all following events are facts of the story even before Varric begins his tale so they cannot be changed. Only your Hawkes actions leading up to and after these events have room for reinterpretation. You are reliving these moments in his or her life whereas in DA:O it was a character of your creation shaping present events with your actions.

[HolyJellyfish]

Also, I am going to make an addition to my above post if the people responsible for rushing the game's development happen to read it. I am not suggesting they will, but by the off chance they do, here we go:

DAII was a good game, but it is still disappointing in the great scope of things. Bioware is KNOWN to take their time to craft, create, and develop fan favorites. If you continue to push insane deadlines in order to release a game faster, so that you can get that hot check and rely on FANS and BRAND NAME LOYALTY to reach the sales you want at the expense of quality, you will lose your audience. You will lose your audience and you will lose the attention of newcomers. Games shouldn't be treated like blockbuster movie sequels. People can see a movie for nine bucks a pop. A game costs $60, and the additional DLC costs. In this economy, shelling out that cash is more and more difficult, and is done only if a game is high quality. Unless you'd prefer people steal or pirate the game? That typically happens as well and then everyone loses money at the expense of a rushed game.

Give the developers time to create.

I do not claim to be an expert in this industry, but 1 year + 3 months does NOT feel like a comfortable time period to make anything, while the team is also designing DLC and taking care of their families. I am familiar with deadlines in Animation studios, and I see what happens when people are pushed, and I know what its like to see my boyfriend work fifteen hour shifts without weekends because there is no time to spare. Its ridiculous.

[maxbarton]

boraxalmighty wrote...


For the love of God people please stop comparing the storytelling of DA:O to DA2! Its a completely different type of story. As previously stated DA2 is a retelling of known events. You are replaying the life of Hawke instead of creating the lore of an unknown entity like in DA:O. It's the reason why Hawke cannot be an Elf or a Dwarf and why we should be thankful Bioware allowed us as much customization of Hawke as we got. His mothers death, the battle with the qunari, the deep road expidition, and the destruction of the chantry and all following events are facts of the story even before Varric begins his tale so they cannot be changed. Only your Hawkes actions leading up to and after these events have room for reinterpretation. You are reliving these moments in his or her life whereas in DA:O it was a character of your creation shaping present events with your actions.

It's a fair comparison.  They're made by the same company and part of the same franchise.  Bioware stated that you'd have choices that'd have impact.  I guess that may be true, but they don't make an impact that matters (read my earlier post).  Cutting stuff out of a sequel isn't a good move.  We shouldn't be 'thankful' for as much customization as we got, we should expect it.  The game isn't free, we pay their salaries, simple as that.

All of the events you listed could have had alternatives and still been 'told by Varric.'  Varric doesn't tell of those events until your charcter gets there so his choices should impact the events.  The game railroads you into most situation with the inability to effect the outcome, even if logic dictates that in some situations you could have altered events.  All it would have taken is more storytelling ability on Bioware's part to create multiple results for events that still tied together enough for them to make DA3.

Besides in the end Hawke disappears so some results could have been different without changing much.   If I'd met up with the seriel murderer in time to prevent him from killing my mother with just moments to spare it'd have still pissed me off at crazy mages.

I'm also aware that the game got rushed and I blame the game's very linear story on this.  I still love Bioware, and I really hope that if they'd had even 6 more months the game would not have been as it is now plot wise.

Modifié par maxbarton, 14 mars 2011 - 05:05 .

[boraxalmighty]

maxbarton wrote...

boraxalmighty wrote...

 Thats because this is not your story. What people seem to not realize is that your role in this game is to define the character at the heart of this story not the story itself. This is a retelling of past events so the outcome is inevitable. All you're doing is shaping the person Hawke is and the decisions s/he made that brought him/her to that point. It's like having two people tell their side of the story on the same event. Their stories may differ completely but they both ultimately reach the same conclusion.

I understand this and a lot of hate comes from the fact that in the end, it doesn't matter who Hawke is.  The end is the same.  You get to see some minor results from your actions, like sparing people so they can try to kill you later.  However you know that in the grand scheme of things Hawke would only be remembered for killing a ton of people, or for what he got the title of Champion from.  Killing the Arishok.

Orsino, Meredith and Anders were the only characters that changed the fate of Thedas and mages.  If the hero hadn't been there events probably would have just taken longer or happened exactly the same.  Sure you found the artifact but that whilely little dwarf would have found a way to go on that expedition anyway.  Even if you didn't there were already signs that Meredith was coming down hard on mages.  Anders was insane and he would have found a way to blow up the chantry regardless.  This would have started the revolution anyway.  You play a bystander and that's not a great place to fit in a role-playing game.

Does this mean I hate the game?  Not really.  I'm getting ready for my second playthorugh.  It isn't my favorite title and I'm sure I'll buy the DLC when it comes out so that I can try and gain more from this game.  It does detract from having the epic character who changed the fate of the world.

Also you becoming Viscount is an afterthought, and in the end you disappear anyway.

You're forgetting one very important thing that the champion did which led to the rebellion: the death of Knight-Commander Meridith. That was the most important action taken in the game. You understand this if you side with the templars. If that fight never happens then the rebellion never happens. The right of annulment was enacted and all mages of the Circle were slaughtered. If that was the end of it then it would have ended right there just like in Ferelden. By defeating Meridith Hawke became a symbol to all mages that the templars are not invincble and gave them the courage to rise up against them whether that is what he wanted or not. Don't sell your actions short. If the the story of Thedas progresses as I think it might you very well may have participated in the single most important event of this age.

[MICHELLE7]

rft wrote...

I would really like to know what all this hate is about. DA2 is definally not as good as DA:O but that doesn't stop it from being a bad game does it? The two main problems i saw were that:

1. The story had no real point untill Act 2

2. It all took place in the same city.

It seems people for some reason doesn't like the game because it wasn't as good as DA:O.



Note: I know these kinds of theads have been seen a thousand times so please try to stay on topic.

The thing about the story was that it was so well crafted you didn't see it coming until the end. I would never of guessed that the idol they found in Act 1 would play a major role in Act 3 and be the underlying reason for the whole thing. As far as writing is concerned they executed the element of surprise superbly.

It played out like life...you don't know that what affect your past choices will make on the future until the future comes to pass. I really didn't see the story as a problem as all.

I can see where some people might see the city thing being a problem...but I was okay with that.

[reddragon567]

MICHELLE7 wrote...
The thing about the story was that it was so well crafted you didn't see it coming until the end. I would never of guessed that the idol they found in Act 1 would play a major role in Act 3 and be the underlying reason for the whole thing. As far as writing is concerned they executed the element of surprise superbly.

Actually Verric spoils it. He says "if we never gone down there none of this would have happened". So I knew that the relic was going to be a big deal later on. Along with Bartrend selling it. 

[maxbarton]

boraxalmighty wrote...


You're forgetting one very important thing that the champion did which led to the rebellion: the death of Knight-Commander Meridith. That was the most important action taken in the game. You understand this if you side with the templars. If that fight never happens then the rebellion never happens. The right of annulment was enacted and all mages of the Circle were slaughtered. If that was the end of it then it would have ended right there just like in Ferelden. By defeating Meridith Hawke became a symbol to all mages that the templars are not invincble and gave them the courage to rise up against them whether that is what he wanted or not. Don't sell your actions short. If the the story of Thedas progresses as I think it might you very well may have participated in the single most important event of this age.

Well technically if you hadn't been there Meredith would have fought the Harvestor, but she probably would have prevailed.  Even with you there killing Meredith most of the mages are killed in the Circle, no matter which side you're on.  The entire world was sitting on a powder keg and would likely have went off either way with the events in Kirkwall.

From the ending:
"Word of the slaughter spread quickly."

It does go on to say the Champion became a rallying cry for opposing the templars, but the same could have been said for Orsino.  It'd have ended with one side saying "He was a blood mage!" and the other seeing him as a martyr for freedom.

Or of course rallying behind Anders because he opposed the templars and struck a blow to them.

[monima]

reddragon567 wrote...

MICHELLE7 wrote...
The thing about the story was that it was so well crafted you didn't see it coming until the end. I would never of guessed that the idol they found in Act 1 would play a major role in Act 3 and be the underlying reason for the whole thing. As far as writing is concerned they executed the element of surprise superbly.

Actually Verric spoils it. He says "if we never gone down there none of this would have happened". So I knew that the relic was going to be a big deal later on. Along with Bartrend selling it. 

Yeah I knew it too, it added to the mystery before you went down into the deep roads. What were you going to find? But after that it just acted as a spoiler. 

[MasterSamson88]

rft wrote...

Raltar wrote...

I think a lot of people didn't like it because it wasn't a traditional fantasy story like DAO was. I personally loved it.

Same

Same here.

[boraxalmighty]

maxbarton wrote...

boraxalmighty wrote...


You're forgetting one very important thing that the champion did which led to the rebellion: the death of Knight-Commander Meridith. That was the most important action taken in the game. You understand this if you side with the templars. If that fight never happens then the rebellion never happens. The right of annulment was enacted and all mages of the Circle were slaughtered. If that was the end of it then it would have ended right there just like in Ferelden. By defeating Meridith Hawke became a symbol to all mages that the templars are not invincble and gave them the courage to rise up against them whether that is what he wanted or not. Don't sell your actions short. If the the story of Thedas progresses as I think it might you very well may have participated in the single most important event of this age.

Well technically if you hadn't been there Meredith would have fought the Harvestor, but she probably would have prevailed.  Even with you there killing Meredith most of the mages are killed in the Circle, no matter which side you're on.  The entire world was sitting on a powder keg and would likely have went off either way with the events in Kirkwall.

From the ending:
"Word of the slaughter spread quickly."

It does go on to say the Champion became a rallying cry for opposing the templars, but the same could have been said for Orsino.  It'd have ended with one side saying "He was a blood mage!" and the other seeing him as a martyr for freedom.

Or of course rallying behind Anders because he opposed the templars and struck a blow to them.

Orsino didn't do anything but go ugly and die. If the Champion wasn't there Meredith defeats Orsino and by doing so validates her beliefs to the rest of Thedas. Orsino would become just another evil blood mage put down by the great knight-commander. As long as Meredith lives there is no hope for mages. This sort of thing has happened before in different Circles but nothing came of it because when the rite of annulment was enacted the mages lost and were all slaughtered. If you side with the mages this is the first time that the rite was put into effect and failed. Mages survive and spread the word. If you side with Meredith you become Viscount and your achievements become the motivating factor for the mages. Your disappearance is at the moment irrelevant because we don't know why you disappear just like the warden. But just like Varric said if Hawke was never there none of this would have happened as it did.  As for blood mage Hawke not being a major story point as I said earlier its irrelevant because there is obviously a single ideal that was set for Hawke. The fact you can change his class, sex and skin color actually detract from the experience. If you are going to a story of set events then the character should be set too so that the plot points can be solidly defined. Being a mage just made the story feel off.

[maxbarton]

No matter what you do the game tells you that the mages are slaughtered. I did the mage ending and pretty much 90% of them die and the rest escape. It isn't a victory. At the end the templars just back away from Hawke as he leaves the city.

The annulment still happens in the mage ending, excluding maybe a sibling or yourself if you played a mage.

A crazy woman enacting annulment and the chantry being blown up are the real triggers for the revolution.

Revolutionaries would have found someone to associate to their cause other than Hawke.  Most likely it would have been Anders.

Modifié par maxbarton, 14 mars 2011 - 06:55 .

[Sleekshinobi]

I think I'm at like a happy medium with the game, I mean there are definitely bits and pieces I didn't like about it (like the lack of item descriptions & the effects runes had on your weapons) but for the most part it is a really good game.

[boraxalmighty]

But it would have meant nothing if the templars were not defeated. Excessive acts by mages are nothing new and the consequence for those actions on a massive scale is the rite of annulment. It would have changed nothing aside from making things worse for mages everywhere. Mages fear the templars and that fear keeps them from fighting back. It is only when Hawke shatters that image of invincibility that they gain the courage to fight back. Kill the head and the body will die. Now killing Meredith alone would have solved nothing because someone would replace her and the mages would once again fall in line because all they wanted was a better Circle, and blowing up the Chantry alone would not have done it because it would have been written off as an attack by evil mages quickly purged by the templars. The combination of events was what was needed. With the Chantry destroyed by magic no mage was would be spared in the backlash of this event and with the defeat of the knight-commander the mages found the courage to no longer tolerate the inhumane treatmentof the templars. It was the perfect ****storm.

[White_Buffalo94]

I liked the story more than Origins' main plot. It's much bigger than Blights and 'spawn and this game really shows it

[boraxalmighty]

You also have to remember that most makes do not hate the Chantry. Anders actions would have been frowned upon by most if not all Circle mages. The thing standing between the mages and the freedom they desire is the templars. Hawke showed it could be done thus igniting the flames of rebellion.

[maxbarton]

In the town of Kirkwall the only mages to survive are the ones that fled. In the mage ending you don't defeat the templars. You kill Meredith and walk off and Cullen takes over. The courtyard is still full of templars. All you did was stop Meredith. By that point not many mages were even left.

If they would blow off the attack on the chantry as just an attack by evil mages then they would do the same for Hawke's actions. He 'murdered' Meredith and fled (technically he walks off, but the templars probably wouldn't put it that way in their press release ). Depending on if you were a mage it'd be even worse cause you'd just be another evil mage to the templars.

In either case the mages still die in Kirkwall. At this point tensions have reached a boiling point where Anders actions and most likely escape (he wouldn't have been standing next to Meredith if he hadn't been with Hawke) would have led to revolt. He'd have still went around inciting rebellion, or at worst die a martyr to the cause.

Also the templars and chantry would always try to brush it off as the acts of evil mages or non-believers. Just because they say it, doesn't mean the circles would believe it.

[maxbarton]

The templars work for the chantry. It's still a blow to the organization.

[boraxalmighty]

Mages survived the annulment. That is a bigger blow to the templars than you think. The rite is absolute. never before has a mage survived the rite and yet here not only are there more than a few surviving mages but the knight-commander was killed. Meredith was a legend among the templars and mages who had never even met her feared her name. This tension that you speak of was unique to Kirkwall. Not all Circles were this oppressive. If you remember Cullen from DA:O then you know how bad the Circle is that he is slightly sympathetic for the mages in Kirkwall. Blowing up the Chantry would have moved extremists to action. But swift and absolute retribution from the templars would dissuade the majority. The templars failed to exact that retribution and lost their champion in the process. They can't write off that big of a failure no matter how hard they try especially since the surviving mages are spreading the word of the Champion's victory.