Okay, for everybody accusing this politician of bashing the game just because Robespierre was a villain, the problem isn't so much a matter of villainizing the French Revolutionists, but HAVING THE ASSASSINS SUPPORT THE ARISTOCRATS THE REVOLUTION WAS MEANT TO STOP, THUS MAKING THE MONARCHISTS SEEM LIKE THE GOOD GUYS IN COMPARISON!!! In terms of analogy, this would be like a game where you fight against Soviet Russia by HELPING THE NAZIS. Sure, both sides are bad in their own ways, especially when Robespierre completely went off the rails during his "Reign of Terror", but this game seemed set on supporting the side almost everybody in history had declared to be the GREATER of the two evils, wanting the Assassins to support the corrupt and decadent nobles over the people whose rulers were letting starve to death in the streets. It even makes less sense considering how many times the Assassins have aided the revolutionaries in these sort of upheavals, and how the Templars have supported decadent monarchies and tyrants: the swap around isn't meant to toy with the idea of "grey and grey morality", but exists to say "okay, the Monarchists are the good guys now because the Assassins are helping them, and the Revolutionists are the bad guys because Robespierre is a Templar".