Which is ridiculously contradictory in itself. So, Trevor died now and he's Alucard, yet he insists in calling Dracula his father, which he is supposedly not, considering that he was made by Dracula when he was Gabriel the human, which he's also not anymore because he's Dracula, yet Dracula calls him his son when he's dying, yet he's not his son... AAAUGH!
You're grossly exaggerating how complex it is to make an, IMO, very poor point.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThatManIsDeadIt's a very, very common trope.
Sorry, no. He may not be called Trevor "because Dracula changed his name", but his motives are the same, his soul is the same, his clothing is the same, his voice is the same, he recognizes Gabriel/Dracula as his father, and Simon as his son, thus he's essentially Trevor.
Did anyone say we can't call him Trevor? Dracula calls him Trevor.
Also, whenever I see someone defending Cox "He's right, Trevor is not Alucard", I try reallly, really hard to not cry in fetal position. It seems like said person is trying too much to hide the truth from himself with semantic plays. I see the point. I understand the symbolics behind "Trevor dying and being reborn as a creature of the night, with nothing to lose anymore", but c'mon dudes?
Stow the drama for a second, will you? Nobody is saying "OMG TREVOR ISN'T ALUCARD IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, OR VICE VERSA. THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT BEINGS ORIGINATING FROM TWO SEPARATE SOURCES". The point is that Cox was running MoF's PR at the point of making that statement, and upon being asked the biggest spoiler of the game, chose no to spoil it and instead responded with what ultimately amounted to a very PR answer.
I don't get why people get so "Cox lied, people died" about it. Sure, he could have abstained from answering the question, but he didn't, and the answer works if you're not being flat out literal about it.