Awards shows are all corporate garbage that no one should EVER take even 1% seriously, in fact it's more probable that doing that opposite of what they tell you is going to do you better... Just watch for the world premiere trailers, maybe watch the usual Giant Bomb stream for some laughs.

In order to actually do an awards so correctly, it could not be a popularity contest (as advertising to the populace essentially directly buys votes and you cannot verify every person played all games nominated to actually compare), and it would have to be as transparent as glass with severe penalties for any form of bribe or bias.

Just as a rough draft, here's the structure I would use:

• Pool of judges that are all veterans in some field. Some techy, some e-sporty, some more audio and art focused, but all with substantial gaming experience across many genres and platforms. 10-30 of them.
• ALL playthroughs of ALL games from ALL judges are streamed and archived in full, with voice. Streamers already do this constantly, there are no storage or tech concerns (especially now that the handheld platforms, both Switch and Phone have video output, unlike 3DS of the past)... it's cheap, it's easy, do it.
• Main story completion of all nominated games is MANDATORY, or your votes are fully invalidated. Souls-likes almost always allow you to farm upgrades to make it easier and easier, so unless a new game comes out akin to classic Ninja Gaiden, there is no excuse.
• All nominated titles with a PC version must be tested as the primary platform by all judges, and they may optionally add-on others if they wish to.
• Modding/cheating on PC is permitted and can be factored into your judgement of what a game offers. Minecraft for example would not exist today without the modding scene, and it still radically changes what the experience can offer even in the modern versions. Modding and cheating options are a reality, and a developer permitting or blocking them directly affects that product you're buying.
• All discussions between judges, whether text or voice, is captured, archived, and made public.
• All scores/rankings, whatever the system may be, require mandatory text explanations alongside each input.
• All finalized scores would be presented on a website that allows users to individually disable specific judges, or a their rating of a specific game, to see how that impacts the total ranking. With all of their explanations, discussions, and playthroughs being public, this allows users to legitimately claim a particular judge or one of their rankings as being objectively invalid.
• Finally, any clear evidence of a judge receiving any gifts, payments, special access, or personal relationships from a publisher or developer (as all of the hardware and games will be provided in full to all within the closed system, they don't need ANYTHING else, no trips, no super collectors editions with bottles of wine and cheese platters, no dev interviews, no nothing)... voids their entire salary, voids all of their scores, and if the ratings had already been submitted, forces a re-submission by all other judges with that added context.

Anything less than that IMO, and your ratings and awards are DOGSHIT that cannot be trusted by anyone EVEN IF there was no bribes of any kind, just because the lack of competence and perspective the judges usually have (no PC versions, no modding, amateur players, etc). And don't tell me it's too hard or too expensive, because the amount of advertising $ earned from just the presentation is enough to cover the 10-30 salaries and all of the games and equipment needed to conduct this. To be fair, game publishers are going to be less likely to sponsor such a transparent process, but you could still make it work with the few that do and by switching the rest to accessory/hardware ads and unrelated things like cars/razers/film&TV.