200 réponses à ce sujet

[Jawsomebob]

Evebrey wrote...

What’s so BAD about the Synthesis Ending?

I keep seeing people claim that the Synthesis Ending is the worst possible ending to the game, but I don’t really see this. I’m mostly writing this to find out why this is? I thought the ending was fitting for my (Paragon) Shepard but I really want to know more about the opposing opinions.

Why I think it’s the best ending (at least for my Shepard)-

  This ending allowed my Commander to achieve what he has been fighting for the past two games. As a (PROUD) Tali romancer the whole Geth/Quarian Plot has been very important to my character and has had lead to the decisions with the highest amount of emotional backlash. Shepard has been pushing the idea of coexistence for a long time. A prime example of this dates back to the argument between Legion, whom I offered my full trust and Tali my romantic partner. The Commander refused to take a stand with either of them even if it might have cost him his loyal partner, and convinced them to work together. This comes up again in Mass Effect 3   in the fight for Rannoch. As the reaper was defeated, my idea of organic and synthetic co existence came into question by the reaper. The reaper told us that the idea was impossible but Shepard didn’t give up and became that much more determined to prove them wrong.  The decision to choose between the Quarians and the Geth was instantaneous for me. Even though the Geth were Synthetic they were obviously the victims and deserved a chance live. Shepard’s views didn’t change even after Tali plead her case. Fortunately, for the both us, the option to convince the fleet became available and we did just that.

Ok now fast forward to the end game.

When the Godchild gave me an option that would allow mutual understanding by both synthetics and organics the path to the (GOOD) conclusion to my chronicle presented itself. This would allow for the Quarians and the Geth to live in (hopefully) eternal peace, but it wasn’t just that. The Reapers would stop being Chaos lacking purpose and understanding of Organic existence while the humans would learn the value of synthetic life. I’m not going to lie; I didn’t take this choice without doubt. I felt almost like organics were being forced into this new step of evolution. Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement. The Galaxy was ready and Galactic Collaboration was just the Prologue to this new step. The only reason this wasn’t possible in the past (at least in this cycle) was that it was impossible for Organic to understand Synthetics and Vice Versa.

Final Thoughts.

No, I don’t think ending treats synthetics as non-living entities. I think it focuses more in mutual understanding. Emotions for Synthetics and Value for artificial life for Organics.

Fate of ‘The Shepard’:
Even thought Shepard survives at the end of the ‘Destroy’ ending I don’t think that makes it the best ending. My Shepard stood for what he believed and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure peace for everyone in the galaxy, including the Reapers. I like to think he serves as a modern type of Jesus, giving his life to amend for everyone’s sins.

Organics= Destruction of all AI s (Genocide), Attacks against the Geth, the Councils Strict AI Prohibition, etc.
Synthetic= Reaper Attacks, Geth Heretics, the Attack on Luna, etc. Again, this is all my opinion and I’m excited to read about what others think.

Synthesis makes everyone look creepy and stupid.

[Balek-Vriege]

Legbiter wrote...

It's not Mass Effect.

It's a horrible Space Hippy ending where Shepard gives in to the Reapers and changes all life in order for them to entertain the notion of halting their genocide. It manages to combine Body Horror with total abnegation of anything approaching Free Will while giving you nightmare fuel like the glowing eyes on the krogan baby.

In short, it's my worst nightmare x 1000.000.

Doesn't look like a nightmare to me.. unless green lights and glowing skin pulses is the scariest thing out there.

The issue is not that you win or the Reapers lose when it comes to Synthesis.  If somoene can't get over the fact that Synthesis is bigger than just stopping and taking vengence/justice against the Catalyst and his Reaper forces, its really not the decision that person should be choosing.  If you have problems with transhumanism in general and becoming more than we are now thorugh "god-like tinkering" through technology, then Synthesis is really not for you.


The option is more about saying and asking yourself:   "Ok, I see your point Catalyst.  Hmm Synthesis?  A one time possibility of fixing this problem forever and making sure there is not another war fought between Organics and Synthetics because of our vast differences?  Will we still be us?  What is it that makes us Human?  Is it our bodies or is it our soul, if that even exists?  Is understanding and wisdom more important than total self detemrination and free will in choosing your own destiny?  Does this situation merit such a drastic change in all life itself?" etc. etc. etc.

I think different endings are better depending on your perspective on the universe, it's problems and what matters or doesn't matter to you.

[Hydralysk]

memorysquid wrote...
So?

Read my first post, this was in response to the "
The reason he was acting this was because by this point he was indocrinated and his goals were that of the Reapers. " point. In short his goal IS that of the reapers, that's my point.

memorysquid wrote... 

He was definitely indoctrinated.  His point wasn't in favor of synthesis though, as without the Crucible, there was no synthesis.  He favored toadying up to the Reapers in hopes they'd find us useful enough to spare, ala the Collectors.

Reread my post. I'm not saying Saren was in the know about the crucible 3 years prior, I'm saying that what he was proposing and trying to tempt shepard with was by all definitions the same as synthesis. "The relationship is symbiotic, organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel, the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!" yes he didn't know that a giant space battery could enable synthesis, but that's not the point. The point is what he is advocating is by all standards the same as synthesis regardless of how Saren at that point in time thought it could be achieved. As for his reason for agreeing with the reapers why does that change anything? Saren is advocating a synthesis-like solution to protect us from the Reapers, the Reapers are advocating synthesis to protect us from futurebots.

memorysquid wrote...  

You sacrifice the Geth and EDI's right to self-determine, in perpetuity, by exterminating them both.  You can't rebuild them; that's contrary to the actual canon.  Cloning you after I shot you dead wouldn't be remaking you in any meaningful sense.

And it isn't a necessary sacrifice when weighed off against control and synthesis as two options you are choosing not to take.  You have three, not one, options to a Reaping.  This whole issue of violation of self-determination is bogus.  In game, Shep has no problem with the issue.  In fact, when confronted with a similar problem re: the Genophage in ME3, his response is basically "I did it.  No one can change it now."

True I am sacrificing the geth and EDI's right to self determination to protect the rest of the galaxy's, which is why I even have problem with the Destroy ending, the geth and EDI death was tacked on because even the writers knew that you needed some kind of reason other than 'the cycle which may or may not exist will continue' to even consider picking the other endings when the whole point of ME3 was to destroy the reapers. 

When I said rebuild I mean the quarians can rebuild the geth platforms/AI and human engineers can do the same. I'm not saying Legion is coming back to life or anything but do you really think the Quarians don't know how to uild a geth even after all that research was done to prepare for the invasion? The geth as a collective can be recreated but no they won't be who they were before, I never claimed they would be.

In terms of the neccesary sacrifice point I ask you, what were you fighting for? If the goal was the eradication of Reaper influence on the galaxy then Destroy IS neccesary. Both Control and Synthesis have the Reapers still fully functional and a very major power in the galaxy.

In terms of the Genophage I don't see your point? The Krogan determined they wanted the genophage cured, Shepard helped them, how is that not self determination? You say Shepard has no problem with the issue, maybe your's didn't but mine thought the genophage was an abomination for taking away the Krogan's future since it was forced upon them instead of a countermeasure they themselves developed (though why would they). Curing the genophage isn't a violation of self detemination, it's the opposite.

memorysquid wrote...  

Well you should, because the writers intended you to.

So? If the writers intended it then they should've done a better job, it's not the audiences fault that the writers couldn't convey their points well.

memorysquid wrote...  
or a billion times in a row.  You're just making it up as you go.

Yes, yes I am, and the fact that my argument still works since you've failed to prove that it didn't happen proves my point. If you want me to believe something you have prove it to me, you can't just say "so it is" and expect me to swallow that.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:11 .

[MegaSovereign]

Ethics beside, it is a very pragmatic ending.

You stop the Reapers, avoid collateral damage, and upgrade both organic/synthetic life.

[Kamfrenchie]

Reapers have to pay. We can't just let their crimes go unpunished !

Also it's stupid space magic.

And it is forced despite what the catalyst says. The galaxy did not agree to become radioactive green, this is not tech developed by any of us, and we do it under the threat of the reapers

[Hydralysk]

@Balek read your response to my response but I've got to go to bed for the day so I won't be able to formulate a response today (maybe tomorrow). Regardless though I have enjoyed the debate so far and I can see where you are coming from even if I don't agree with you on some of the details.

[Xamufam]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Troxa wrote...

It does not make sense in mass effect, scientifically & it takes away free will & conflict (conflict is part of life) & makes you a husk.

In synt ending every one seemed to get along. That would never happen if it wasn't some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going on. "There is just too much bad blood"

Reapers cooperating with organics would never happen voluntarily

Good point. Another argument against Synthesis, "out" of game, would be comparable to the Matrix lore. One Matrix was designed to make everyone happy; and people started killing themselves because there was nothing there.

A Utopia is not a way to live, unless we shed that which makes a Utopia so desireable. People do not want a Utopia because their deepest desire is to live with Synthetics in peace and harmony. Synthetics are all nice, but people want a Utopia to be free of the problems they themselves have; nanotech won't help. Therefore the Synthesis option looks an awful lot like brainwashing to me.

[Xamufam]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Ethics beside, it is a very pragmatic ending.

You stop the Reapers, avoid collateral damage, and upgrade both organic/synthetic life.

collateral damage Synthesis would go very far in that area

You ignore the fact that changing a living organisms entire DNA structure
instantly would be incredibly painful and undeniably lethal.  Also it
takes YEARS for subtle gene therapy to work and using it increases the
risk of cancer and mutations.
Don't think many organics would live through the tranformation.

And it would cause instabillity on a atomic level.

Modifié par Troxa, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[Volc19]

Troxa wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Ethics beside, it is a very pragmatic ending.

You stop the Reapers, avoid collateral damage, and upgrade both organic/synthetic life.

collateral damage Synthesis would go very far in that area

You ignore the fact that changin a living organisms entire DNA structure
instantly would be incredibly painful and undeniably lethal.  Also it
takes YEARS for subtle gene therapy to work and using it increases the
risk of cancer and mutations.
Don't think many organics would live through the tranformation.

And it would cause instabillity on a atomic level.

Even though I hate Synthesis, I really have to point out that your point is false. It would be valid pre-EC, when all we had were speculations, but we see organic beings living just fine with the upgrades in the EC. So, a whole lot of people did live through Synthesis.

It's still silly beyond belief, and it still turns us into the very model of every sci-fi villain ever, but we survive.

[Xamufam]

Volc19 wrote...

Troxa wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Ethics beside, it is a very pragmatic ending.

You stop the Reapers, avoid collateral damage, and upgrade both organic/synthetic life.

collateral damage Synthesis would go very far in that area

You ignore the fact that changin a living organisms entire DNA structure
instantly would be incredibly painful and undeniably lethal.  Also it
takes YEARS for subtle gene therapy to work and using it increases the
risk of cancer and mutations.
Don't think many organics would live through the tranformation.

And it would cause instabillity on a atomic level.

Even though I hate Synthesis, I really have to point out that your point is false. It would be valid pre-EC, when all we had were speculations, but we see organic beings living just fine with the upgrades in the EC. So, a whole lot of people did live through Synthesis.

It's still silly beyond belief, and it still turns us into the very model of every sci-fi villain ever, but we survive.

Didn't bioware state that they didn't wan't an ending with "rainbows and unicorns"

Modifié par Troxa, 14 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[Legbiter]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

The issue is not that you win or the Reapers lose when it comes to Synthesis.  If somoene can't get over the fact that Synthesis is bigger than just stopping and taking vengence/justice against the Catalyst and his Reaper forces, its really not the decision that person should be choosing.

I simply can not fathom a good ending where the Reapers do not face just retribution for all the slaughter they have done. And that's purely aside from the issue of violating all organic life by changing it into something the Reapers deem not worth killing off in the most brutal way possible.

The very thought of synthesis sickens me.

[memorysquid]

Hydralysk wrote...

Reread my post. I'm not saying Saren was in the know about the crucible 3 years prior, I'm saying that what he was proposing and trying to tempt shepard with was by all definitions the same as synthesis.

Not so much; synthesis doesn't have the overtones of slavery that Saren's ideal connoted.  Saren didn't know boo about the Catalyst's rationale either.  Yes, he talked up the benefits of being a cyborg.  I don't think that is particularly relevant to synthesis either.  Nothing seems to change in synthesis except for some type of Reaper uplink to their stored info.  It certainly doesn't seem to cure Joker.

True I am sacrificing the geth and EDI's right to self determination to protect the rest of the galaxy's, which is why I even have problem with the Destroy ending, the geth and EDI death was tacked on because even the writers knew that you needed some kind of reason other than 'the cycle which may or may not exist will continue' to even consider picking the other endings when the whole point of ME3 was to destroy the reapers.

When I said rebuild I mean the quarians can rebuild the geth platforms/AI and human engineers can do the same.

I can make children.  That doesn't mitigate the ethical import of murder.  What is lost is lost.  What can be created is immaterial to that.  If killing the Geth is ethically significant, then making new Geth is irrelevant to that.

In terms of the neccesary sacrifice point I ask you, what were you fighting for? If the goal was the eradication of Reaper influence on the galaxy then Destroy IS neccesary. Both Control and Synthesis have the Reapers still fully functional and a very major power in the galaxy.

Well that was my goal until they changed everything in the last 10 minutes.  I am not arguing the ending isn't a complete asspull.  It does, however, exist.

In terms of the Genophage I don't see your point? The Krogan determined they wanted the genophage cured, Shepard helped them, how is that not self determination? You say Shepard has no problem with the issue, maybe your's didn't but mine thought the genophage was an abomination for taking away the Krogan's future since it was forced upon them instead of a countermeasure they themselves developed (though why would they). Curing the genophage isn't a violation of self detemination, it's the opposite.

The Salarians in particular think it constitutes a risk far too great to countenance.  Paragon Shepard doesn't care.  P. Shep is willing to do what he thinks maximizes his personal version of rule utility or whatever and screw anyone who disagrees.  That is my point.  He couldn't give a **** less about self-determination when he thinks X needs to be done.  300K Batarians?  Oh well, this will slow down the Reapers.  Boom.

So? If the writers intended it then they should've done a better job, it's not the audiences fault that the writers couldn't convey their points well.

My only rebuttal is that you aren't discussing ME then.  They conveyed it well enough for me to get it, and apparently for you too.

Yes, yes I am, and the fact that my argument still works since you've failed to prove that it didn't happen proves my point. If you want me to believe something you have prove it to me, you can't just say "so it is" and expect me to swallow that.

Your argument doesn't work, though. 

1) First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.  The writers don't say.  Why?  Speculation for everyone!  Or more likely they didn't expect people to question this part but rather to focus on the dilemma.

2) The point of their dilemma is plain and you and most everyone who favors destroy attempt to skirt it.  They favor altruism.  If you sacrifice Shepard totally, utility is maximized for the galaxy, rainbows and puppies, etc.  If you wimp out to save his skin, stuff blows up, but you still win - the result is simply sub-optimal.  And control is half and half.  There's a roboShep, Reapers help out but no Reaper uplink or whatever.  All this about informed consent is irrelevance to distract from the central point that destroy is and will remain suboptimal so long as we are discussing ME3.

[Balek-Vriege]

Legbiter wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

The issue is not that you win or the Reapers lose when it comes to Synthesis.  If somoene can't get over the fact that Synthesis is bigger than just stopping and taking vengence/justice against the Catalyst and his Reaper forces, its really not the decision that person should be choosing.

I simply can not fathom a good ending where the Reapers do not face just retribution for all the slaughter they have done. And that's purely aside from the issue of violating all organic life by changing it into something the Reapers deem not worth killing off in the most brutal way possible.

The very thought of synthesis sickens me.

So you hold the Reapers accountable for the Catalyst's directive that they had no control over?  It's stated by the Catalyst it a) controls the Reapers and   hints it created the first Reapers by killing and melting down its creator race against their will.  Reapers didn't follow the Catalyst's orders.  They were enslaved from the beginning.

On another thread I used the example of a possessed person in a horror flick.  The protagonists fights a person possessed by the devil, but doesn't know it.  Then when the protagonists is about to defeat the villain, we learn its the Devil and are able to exorcise it.  In my opinion based on Catalyst dialogue from the EC, your sense of justice would be killing the person after they're saved because they were the vessel for evil deeds even though this "innocent" is not responsible for them.

The Reapers in the end of Synthesis are not the same as the ones pre Synthesis. It appears the Catalyst no longer directs them.  They help rebuild and share their knowledge, technology and history of the civilizations that they're made from.  If you did want them to be accountable for the countless lives they took as servants to the Catalyst, then what better way than to have them help move civilization forward for the rest of their days.

That besides the point though.  You do not like Synthesis because of the personal, ethical and/or moral reasons you hold and perceive this ending to violate.  That's fine by me because you also have two other main choices and a refuse choice as well.  If it sickens you then don't think about it too much and just pick Destroy.


I'm not sickened by Synthesis because i'm in to all that transhumanism Sci-fi stuff (Like the Dune series etc.), but it's not for everyone.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:52 .

[Belisarius09]

oh look its this thread again

synthesis is bad and you should feel bad

gg no rm

[AlexMBrennan]

Sorry to cut in:

First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.

True, but it doesn't matter - Shepard still has no reason to trust Godchild. Thus, Shepard has no reason to care about the tech singularity.

All you have done is shown why this scene cannot work: Shepard can only report an anecdote to Godchild whilst Shepard has no reason to trust anything Godchild says. There's exposition, but no meaningful dialogue.

My only rebuttal is that you aren't discussing ME then. They conveyed it well enough for me to get it, and apparently for you too.

Well, no. The same argument also applies to Shepard - if I, the player, don't believe that synthesis is possible because I've only heard about it now from Godchild then that's a meta argument... but Shepard, too, only heard about it just now from Godchild and thus has good reason to doubt it.

Choosing synthesis only works if you have knowledge of the future (you're using the epilogue to justify the decision). That's what's wrong with it - Bioware is forcing the player to make Shepard act OOC to get the good ending.

[Dobiog101]

Rhazeal wrote...

Calling it Synthesis and coloring it green doesn't make Eugenics an acceptable solution.

Eugenics will never be an acceptable solution.

Synthesis has nothing to do with eugenics, at least as far as I'm concerned. There's no mention of genetic alteration or selection, only the formation of a new type of DNA. I took this to mean that whilst the base makeup of DNA may have changed the coded genes would essentially be the same, just with added space magic. Thus not eugenics.

   Also eugenics is just as much about getting rid of "bad" genes as breeding for  "good" ones and there's no mention of anthing along those lines. As an example of what I mean, Joker still appears to have brittle bones, just now with an added green glow.

[Chewin]

B/c the entire point of the ME series is that diversity is a good thing, and even is the sole reason why humanity has been so special in the first place and are better than every other race. Yet ultimately the Synthesis ending disgustingly makes it that being all the same with no diversity is actually better, and is the key to a better universe.

Also space magic.

[Bourne Endeavor]

What Phydeaux314 on the first page essentially resonates my opinion. I will add another point of contention I had with Synthesis that stems from its utterly lack of exposition.

"Synthesis: While the ending presents an idealistic utopia, we have essentially merged with the Reapers at their leader's behest. Even disregard how completely asinine and contradictory this is with the Mass Effect theme. How do we know they have not enacted some form of control? The ending suggests conflict is abolished. This is simply not possible given the racial mentality. Humanity alone will eventually war with itself. We have two thousand years of actual history to prove such an assertion. Therefore, some variation of control must be implemented, suggesting the Reapers have won."

A quote from a wiki debate I am having, from here for those interested; six post as I had forgot to log in.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:57 .

[AshenSugar]

The strength of the galaxtic civilisation within this cycle resides in it's diversity - Javik actually says this, or something very similar.

Taking away this diversity, and replacing it with absolute homogenised uniformity, is (for me at least) a pretty evil course of action. Throughout human history, we have fought against the various tyrants who have espoused this same 'one master race' doctrine. I see no reason to succumb to it now.

From a game perspective it goes against everything my Shepard has stood for. He has consistantly championed the cause of galactic harmony with other races, and fought steadfastly against all who advocate a 'humans first' viewpoint. Each race has their own unique individual merits, and help add something vital to the collective whole. Accepting absolute homegenisation in the form of synthesis could never be an option under any circumstances.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:33 .

[Ieldra]

This must be the most persisent false myth about Synthesis....if I may correct it: There is not a single piece of evidence that the result of Synthesis is anything like "homogenized uniformity". In fact, I see krogan, humans, asari, rachni etc.. very much looking like they always did, building in the styles they always did etc.. There is no homogenity, neither in a biological nor in a cultural sense.

The only perspective that has been lost is that of non-synthetized synthetics, the state of being where they didn't understand organics.

[fiendishchicken]

What's right with it?

Screw the tech singularity as the main theme of the series. That's horsecrap. The dark energy theme was much better. Or the idea of exploration and seeing the universe. Stopping the Reapers. Those are better themes.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 14 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[Balek-Vriege]

fiendishchicken wrote...

What's right with it?

Screw the tech singularity as the main theme of the series. That's horsecrap. The dark energy theme was much better. Or the idea of exploration and seeing the universe. Stopping the Reapers. Those are better themes.

Which could all be dealth with quite well in a Synthesis universe as older, more simplister causes of conflict an achievement go to the way side.  That goes for inter-galactic expansion too.  They're not better themes so much as more original themes, at least when it comes to Dark Energy.  For example I think it would be interesting in the Star Wars universe if they found out that using the force was causing exponentially increasing entropy in the universe.

I can see why Dark Energy was abandoned because that theme runs an even bigger risk of "If you win, you lose.  If you lose, they win" situation then the current Tech Singularity theme does.  If you defeat the Reapers, Dark Energy continues to eat the Galaxy over the long term and everyone loses.  If you let the Reapers continue, your cycle ends.  Also Tech singularity ties in with almost every other theme beginning in ME1, while Dark Energy does not.  The Dark Energy theme is very hard to tie into a game if you ask me.  How do you go about combating it or finding another way that the Reapers haven't thought of.   Your dealing with space magic (biotics and mass effect fields) as the main theme, which has no basis in real world logic save for unproven/fictional science.  Tecnhological Singularity does have real world routes in science and philosophy (as does the results of Synthesis).

Like I said before.  In a Synthesis ending I could see Dark Energy being dealth with more easily because of the new abilities and potential lifeforms have to notice "uh oh, this Dark Energy thing is a problem..."  However, it and Synthesis would be hard to create a game around without having a major civil war between species about it or an extra-galactic threat.  Better to leave it alone unless Devs and writers are truly up to the challenge of a Mass Effect 4 that starts off with 3 very different Galaxies.

I think it's been stated that any games set after ME3 are probably not going to happen in the Mass Effect Universe (probably because of the above reason), at least for a very long time.  So it's all up for speculation.

A couple posts back I posted the idea that Synthesis doesn't need to be validated by the technilogical singularity problem.  The merits of Synthesis on its own terms is enough to make it a viable ending as much as Destroy and Control are.

[memorysquid]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry to cut in:

First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.

True, but it doesn't matter - Shepard still has no reason to trust Godchild. Thus, Shepard has no reason to care about the tech singularity. 

But he does!  And he does!  So it does matter!  He's not bad, he's just written that way.  Sheesh.  The point is the writers didn't consider this a relevant point.  So blame the writing, but his behavior is internally consistent.  Shepard "understands" Legion's patent nonsense in ME2 as well.  He doesn't say "Wait a second!  An inequality has nothing to do with a literal contradiction!"

[Balek-Vriege]

memorysquid wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry to cut in:

First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.

True, but it doesn't matter - Shepard still has no reason to trust Godchild. Thus, Shepard has no reason to care about the tech singularity. 

But he does!  And he does!  So it does matter!  He's not bad, he's just written that way.  Sheesh.  The point is the writers didn't consider this a relevant point.  So blame the writing, but his behavior is internally consistent.  Shepard "understands" Legion's patent nonsense in ME2 as well.  He doesn't say "Wait a second!  An inequality has nothing to do with a literal contradiction!"

Nothing in my opinion of the endgame says Shepard believes in anything the Catalyst is actually saying or that he/she agrees with it.  The fact is in a sticky situation where he/she has limited time to choose three options to save the Galaxy or refuse to do so.  Shepard's dialogue through the whole Catalyst scene is wishy washy at best and rather unsure of himself/herself.

  I do believe "Shepard was written that way" applies to the Legion dialogue, but that could have been Shepard just probing and not actually debating.  If Shepard doesn't trust or disagrees with the Catalyst, that Shepard will probably choose an ending which is more towards his/her liking (Control or Destroy, which is specifically stated to not fix the cycles).  If Shepard sees no reason why the Catalyst is lying agrees or at least acknowledges its theories, then Synthesis is a viable option too.  Synthesis is actually a viable option regardless for the sake that you make all lifeforms super versions of themselves, possibly remedying other self destructive issues in society.  Seriously if the Catalyst was untrustworthy it could have easily just said it was the Crucible VI and the only way to use the Crucible is by jumping into the centre.  Instead it takes a chance on Shepard.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Read Brave New World and you'll hate Synthesis.