So I stumbled upon some site called Vizzed.com. I read a review of CV3 by some guy named Darkpower508. He gave it a high score of 9.2 (out of 10)! ... But he said in the game's plot:
Dracula's returned, and you, Trevor Belmont must defeat Dracula and rid his castle of evil.
Dracula didn't return (well according to IGA he did), this was his first appearance as far as the Classic Bemonts were concerned! Didn't he even read the intro?! Later in his review, he criticizes the game for what he said is a major flaw:
You can't use sub-weapons on stairs. I know, insane, isn't it?
Um. You
can use subweapons on stairs. Trevor even has a specific sprite index value for that ($0565:24). So nice score, bad review.
Reviewer Marcmoney, aside from doing nothing but comparing it to CV2, criticized the story for, as he put it:
The story basically talks about what Dracula did in his life and how he took over countries in Europe and it is up to a person named Trevor (I think) to stop Dracula. I do not get why they replaced Simon in this game, but it is a whole lot better than the second. It just doesn't make sense.
What the hell? What's so hard to understand about an origins story? My god, Lament Of Innocence must have completely blasted his brain to smithereens!
Reviewer Dainesl01 said CV3 was flawed because of its "difficulty at later stages." Seriously? Bitch, please. I said Contra was flawed because it was too difficult in the beginning. One hit instakills you and 30 lives wasn't enough for me when I first played it. Games getting harder at later levels makes them flawed... wow.