I think that reviews must not have a score. Only the review itself and, maybe, a list of cons and pros at the end of it. If you want to read the whole review, you can do it and if you want a summary of the game, read the list at the end of the review instead of the score. It would give people a better idea on what to expect. For example, if I read "Xenoblade X has a large world to explore" as a con, I'd know that my opinion is not the same as the reviewer and, consequently, I'd dismiss this review.

If I were to judge solely based on that list, I'd say Famitsu. In fact it's a good example of how bad Metacritic is.
But the real answer is neither.

Better pissed than toxic IMO

Different tastes equal different scores, I suppose.

How in the world did Sonic 06 got a 76?

I find both to be equally laughable, if I'm honest. Reviews in general lost all meaning to me in the 7th gen.

Just the Resident Evil 6 97,5/100 score says enough for me. Holy shit what a waste.

Yes, game rating needs diversity. Metacritic is owned by gamespot who are americans

Wow, I never saw Rayman Legends scores. It's overrated as hell xDDD

Back on topic, no, Famitsu scores are nothing but bullshit. I never trust them.

Trust?

What on earth are you talking about?

The question itself is perplexing to me. Should I trust review scores from a Japanese publication halfway around the world when I have zero context? Should I trust an amalgam of arbitrary review scores from North America and Europe where different publications are using different scales and systems?

I don't know, should I trust Daffy Duck or Sylvester the Cat?

How about I read individual reviews objectively but with the full knowledge that no one else is me and that the writers might have very different tastes from myself? I'm the only one that I "trust" with regards to what I enjoy.

That people care so much about review scores--much less review score averages--is absurd.

Demon's Souls 29/40...